IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION CHAMBER SUMMONS NO.1726 OF 2008 IN SUIT NO.2862 OF 2008 Abdul Sattar Haji Usman & Anr. ..Plaintiffs Vs. The Archbiship of Bombay & Ors ..Defendants Mr. Sunil C. Dubey for the Plaintiff Mr. Vijay M. Vaghela for the Defendant No.4 Coram: Smt. Roshan Dalvi, J Date : 08th June, 2009 P.C. 1.The Plaintiff has sought certain amendments in the plaint consequent upon the subsequent events. Defendant No.4 opposes the amendment. The Plaintiff contended that all that the amendments contain is the narration of the events that took place and the orders that came to be passed after filing of the suit. The Plaintiffs have sought to annex certain exhibits and have applied for three further reliefs which are shown to be prayers F-1, F-2 & F-3 to the Plaint. 2.The Defendant contended that the averments set out in the amendment are not subsequent events and that they are the made to restate what was already the knowledge of the Plaintiff prior to the filing of the suit. 3.The suit has been filed for a declaration that the Plaintiffs are the owners of the suit land which is plot at CTS No.40, 40/1 to 129 at Vile parle, Mumbai. The suit is also for a declaration that the Plaintiffs are entitled to use and occupy the suit plot, for handing over possession of the said plot to the Plaintiff, for a declaration that the notice issued u/s 14(1) of the Maharashtra Slum Act is unconsitutional, for declaration that the Acquisition of the suit land is vitiated by fraud and for injunction against interference with the Plaintiffs use and occupation. 4.The amendments to paragraph 57 of the plaint show a criminal complaint filed by one of the tenants of the suit property. The Plaintiffs have challenged certain environmental clearances by way of Notifications dated 27.01.1994 and 07.07.2004 passed well prior to the filing of this suit. The Plaintiffs have also sought to challenge certain correspondence with the Slum rehabilitating Authority (SRA) with Defendant No.4 society and certain meetings held for redevelopment of the suit property. The suit property is already largely developed. The Defendants Advocate pointed out that out of the 345 tenants to be rehabilitated, 260 are already accommodated in the new construction. 5.The factum of the filing of the Criminal complaint by one of the tenants is not required to be a averment in the plaint. It need not have been made even at the time the suit was filed. The facts relating to the criminal complaint filed by one of the tenant do not give any cause of action to the plaint. It is a part of the evidence of the Plaintiff. 6.The notifications under the Slum Act as well as the orders under the Land Acquisition Act have already been challenged in the suit and prayers in that regard have been made. The factum of the environmental clearance with regard to the suit plot of land also would not give the plaintiff any separate cause of action to sue. 7.The contention of the Defendant s Advocate is that after meeting with several defeats before the Authority under the Slum Clearance Act, Acquisition Act, as well as in various writ Petitions, the Plaintiffs have sought to amend the plaint to bring on record the same irrelevant averments 8.The prayers sought to be made, which are stated to be further three prayers in the plaint, are also seen to be prayers already made in the suit. The reading of the original prayers in the suit as well as prayers in the amendment show the prayer F-1 is analogous to prayer (e) , prayer F-2 is analogous to prayer (d) and prayer F-3 is analogous to prayer (c). The repetition cannot be allowed. The Application for amendment is refused. Chamber summons is dismissed. No order as to costs. (Smt. Roshan Dalvi, J)