*1* chs.1912.09 kps IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION CHAMBER SUMMONS NO.1912 OF 2009 IN SUIT NO.2249 OF 2009 Veekaylal Investment Company Pvt.Ltd.. ..Plaintiff -Versus- Mahadeo R. Suryavanshi and others. ..Defendants And M/s Abhigna Corporation and others. ..Respondents .......... Mr.K.A.Chothani, for the Plaintiff. Mr.M.U.Pandey, for the Defendant Nos.1, 4, 5 and 6. Mr.S.D.Mogre, for the Respondent Nos.15, 20, 23, 25, 27, 28, 40, 42, 49, 51, 61 and 71. .......... CORAM : S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATE : 27th September, 2010. P.C. 1 This is a Chamber Summons for impleading the parties and for amendment of the plaint. 2 In the affidavit in support of this Chamber Summons it is urged on behalf of the Plaintiff that the amendments are necessitated on account of the events that are set out in paragraph No.3 of the affidavit. It is stated that the suit property is being developed by M/s Abhigna Corporation, a partnership firm, in pursuance of the Joint Development Agreement dated 12.12.2006 and the supplementary agreement dated 07.04.2008. Out of 62 flats, 57 flats are sold and the agreements are *2* chs.1912.09 executed and registered with the prospective purchasers in respect of 42 flats and so far as 15 flats are concerned, the agreements are yet to be registered. There are 05 unsold flats. Out of 11 shops, 03 shops are sold out of which the agreements in respect of 02 shops are registered and 8 shops are unsold. 3 It is stated that the suit is for removal of unauthorized encroachment made by the Defendants on the suit property upon which the building is being constructed. Since these rights purportedly created have been disclosed while contesting the Notice of Motion No.3161/2009, the Plaintiff on obtaining the copies of documents is required to amend the plaint. Therefore, the events are sought to be incorporated and the parties to the agreements are being impleaded as party Defendants. 4 There is a reply filed by the Defendant No.5 who is also partner of the proposed Defendant (Respondent No.1) stating that the Court Receiver has been appointed who has executed and registered the conveyance deed dated 03.12.1983 which is annexed at Annexure-A to the plaint. The proposed Defendant (Respondent No.1) is developing the land purchased by the original Defendant Nos.1 to 5 and now owned by the Defendant Nos.2 and 4 to 6. The details of construction are disclosed and therefore, it is contended that there is no reason to add all shop and flat purchasers as party Defendants to the suit. It is stated that the acts which are set out in an affidavit in support, at the most, are attributable to the original Defendants and there is no necessity of impleading the purchasers as party Defendants to the suit. 5 Mr.Pandey, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Defendants, submits that this is nothing but an attempt to create some sort of confusion and scare in the mind of the flat and shop purchasers. Such a panic is being deliberately created when the real lis is between the *3* chs.1912.09 original Plaintiff and the original Defendants and for this reason, the Chamber Summons be dismissed. 6 Having perused the Chamber Summons and the affidavit in support, I am of the opinion that subsequent events which are sought to be added can be safely permitted to be incorporated as that would avoid multiplicity of the proceedings. Further they would assist the Court in resolving the controversy completely. So far as the presence of parties is concerned, although there is some substance in the contentions of Mr.Pandey that all purchasers need not be impleaded, yet, applying settled test of joinder of parties, it would be better if they are before the Court. It is clear that all transactions between the Defendants and the Respondents are disclosed to the Court and the parties thereto should be present so that the Court can effectively and fully resolve the controversy and that would enable the Court also to pass a proper and enforceable decree in case final orders have to be passed in the suit. 7 For all these reasons and when Mr.Chothani appearing for the Plaintiff states that the steps would be taken to serve each of the Respondents if they are added as party Defendants, the Chamber Summons is allowed and it is made absolute in terms of prayer clauses (a) and (b) which read thus:- “(a) Without prejudice to the pending Notice of Motion, this Hon’ble Court be pleased to permit the Plaintiff to delete the names of Defendant Nos.1 and 3 in the plaint; (b) Without prejudice to the pending Notice of Motion, this Hon’ble Court be pleased to permit the Plaintiff to carry out the necessary amendment to the Plaint as per the Schedule of Amendment annexed to the Chamber Summons;” 8 Amendment be carried out within four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Amended plaint be served on the newly *4* chs.1912.09 added parties within a period of six weeks from the date the amendment is carried out. 9 Needless to state that all contentions on merits of both sides are kept open and no opinion thereon is expressed. Subject to this, the amendment is allowed. (S.C. Dharmadhikari, J)