IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION CHAMBER SUMMONS NO.585 OF 2006. CHAMBER SUMMONS NO.585 OF 2006. CHAMBER SUMMONS NO.585 OF 2006. IN IN IN SUIT NO.702 of 2006. SUIT NO.702 of 2006. SUIT NO.702 of 2006. Mr.Balkrishna Gupta ..Plaintiff versus M/s.P.J.Pereira & Co. & Others ..Defendants Mr.Uday Bobde with Denzil D’Mello for plaintiff Mr.Chetan Kapadia & Durgesh Khanapurkar i/b. M/s.M.K.Ambalal & Co. for the defendants. CORAM : R.Y.GANOO, J. CORAM : R.Y.GANOO, J. CORAM : R.Y.GANOO, J. DATED : 22nd January, 2009. DATED : 22nd January, 2009. DATED : 22nd January, 2009. P.C. 1. This Chamber Summons is taken out for amendment of the plaint in order to bring on record certain averments concerning the development agreement between the person who at one point of time were partners as per the stand taken by the present plaintiff, as also the declaration that the plaintiff is partner of defendant No.1 firm and for a relief of injunction as set out in the schedule. 2. After having heard learned Counsels on both the sides, it is required to be noted that at this juncture the Court need not go into the question -2- whether the plaintiff would be entitled to get relief if the amendment is granted. 3. In my view, if the plaintiff wishes to place before the Court his case in the new perspective, the plaintiff cannot be prohibited from doing so. Ofcourse, the defendant would be free to raise all the contentions as regards non maintainability of the suit and the question of limitation with reference to new prayers which are being added, as in my view all those questions can be rightly agitated at the time of final hearing of the suit. It is seen that paragraph 21 of the plaint refers to the valuation of the suit at Rs.51,000/-. If the present amendment is granted, plaintiff would be adding the two prayers and as such the plaintiff would be required to value the suit with reference to the two prayers which are sought to be added. In view of this, if the amendment is carried out by the plaintiff, the plaintiff will also have to carry out necessary amendment in the valuation clause and value the two new prayers and pay the deficit court fee. This should be done by the plaintiff on the basis of this Order being passed by the Court. -3- . For the reasons mentioned aforesaid, I pass the following order: ORDER i. The Chamber Summons is made absolute in terms of prayer clause (a). ii. There shall be no order as to cost. iii. Apart from the amendment of the plaint, as per the schedule to the Chamber Summnons, the plaintiff shall amend paragraph 21 of the plaint so as to value the suit properly keeping in view all the prayers which will be before the Court after the amendment as per schedule is carried out. iii. After valuing the suit, the plaintiff will have to pay the deficit Court fee. iv. The plaintiff shall carry out the amendment on or before 6.2.2009 and served the amended copy of the plaint on the defendant’s advocate on or before 17.2.2009. -4- v. Plaintiff shall pay the deficit Court fee on or before 26.2.2009. Suit set down for directions on 27.2.2009. vi. At the time of carrying out amendment the plaintiff shall undertake to the Court through his advocate on a praecipe that the deficit Court fee shall be paid on or before 26.2.2009. vii. Notice of Motion No.744 of 2006 is pending. Learned Counsel for the plaintiff applied for withdrawal of the said Notice of Motion with liberty to take out fresh notice of motion after the amendment is carried out in terms of Order passed in the Chamber Summons No.585 of 2006. All questions are left open. No views are expressed on merits of the matter. Learned Counsel for the plaintiff admitted that as of today there is no ad-interim order running against any of the defendant. (R.Y.Ganoo, J.) (R.Y.Ganoo, J.) (R.Y.Ganoo, J.)