*1* chs.492.11.s.2384.09.1023.sxw kps IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION CHAMBER SUMMONS NO.492 OF 2011 IN SUIT NO.2384 OF 2009 Yang Ming Line (India) Pvt.Ltd. and another. ..Plaintiffs -versus- M.Visvesvaraya Industrial Research and Development Centre. ..Defendant ............ Dr.Birendra Saraf i/b ALMT Legal, for the Plaintiffs. Mr.Gaurav Joshi a/w Neeta Jain, Pratibha Mehta and Ruchir Wani i/b Little & Company, for the Defendant. ............ CORAM : S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J. Date : 14th November, 2011. P.C.: 1 This is a suit filed by the Plaintiffs for declaration that a letter dated 23.12.2004 and two letters at Annexures B and C to the plaint, so also, the contract between the Plaintiff No.1 and the Defendant is valid, subsisting and binding and the Defendant be ordered and directed to specifically perform the same. 2 It is argued on behalf of the Plaintiffs that this Chamber Summons is necessitated because of the subsequent developments. It is stated that after the suit was instituted the Plaintiffs sought relief for continuing in the premises upto 31.03.2013. It is stated that when the application for interim relief being Notice of Motion No.3367/2009 was placed before this Court, first renewal expired and the Plaintiff No.1 continued in possession by exercising its option of second term of licence, namely, from 01.07.2010 to 31.03.2013. These developments have to be *2* chs.492.11.s.2384.09.1023.sxw placed on record. Therefore, the amendment is necessitated. This is event subsequent to the institution of the suit, therefore, liberty may be given to incorporate the same so as to effectively and completely, so also, properly adjudicating the controversy. 3 This Chamber Summons is opposed by the Defendant by pointing out that this is nothing but counter blast to the proceedings instituted in the Small Causes Court. The suit itself is abuse of process of law and this Court has no jurisdiction because what the Plaintiffs are seeking is to enforce is an agreement under which the Defendant allegedly agreed to grant leave and licence of the immovable property/ premises in favour of the Plaintiffs. Such an agreement cannot be enforced and in any event the instant suit is not maintainable. 4 It is contended that the suit filed by the Defendant for eviction and possession in the Small Causes Court is at an advanced stage and now evidence is recorded therein. Therefore, this Chamber Summons may not be entertained or this would have an impact on the proceedings before the Small Causes Court. 5 After hearing both sides at some length, I am of the opinion that merely because this Court permits incorporation of certain events and developments by amending the plaint, does not mean that the merits of the claim will be gone into or decided. It is also settled that any amendment, even on the issue of jurisdiction of the Court is pending for adjudication, if granted, would have no adverse impact on the pleas raised in that behalf. Merely because the amendment is allowed, does not mean that this Court has expressed its opinion either way. Subject to the merits and issue of jurisdiction being kept open, the amendment is granted. It is also made clear that this amendment would have no impact on the proceedings before the Small Causes Court because the same will have to *3* chs.492.11.s.2384.09.1023.sxw be decided on the basis of the oral and documentary evidence led before the Small Causes Court. 6 In such circumstances, by keeping open all pleas of both sides on the amended pleas and without prejudice to their rights and contentions, this Chamber Summons is made absolute in terms of prayer clauses (a) and (b). Amendment be carried out within two weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Amended copy of the plaint be served within two weeks thereafter. No costs. (S.C. Dharmadhikari, J)