1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION CHAMBER SUMMONS NO.1570 OF 2006 IN SUIT NO. 2534 OF 2003 Ramesh M. Patil and ors. ..Plaintiffs. Vs. Kamlakar K. Patil and ors. ..Defendants. Mr. Arif Bookwala, Sr.Counsel i/by Mr.M.M.Demello for the plaintiff. Mr.Arif Doctor along with Ms. Falguni Thakkar i/by Doijode & Associates for the Defendants 5 and 6 to 8. Mr.A.G. Damle for the Defendants 1,2 and 4. CORAM : R.S. MOHITE, J. DATE : 22nd June, 2010 PC : 1 This is a chamber summons taken out by the original plaintiffs for amendment of their plaint. Suit is inter alia for declaration of title and for other reliefs. The other reliefs claimed in the plaint are that the consent terms dated 5.11.1985 filed between one Khanderao Gopal Patil, his predecessor in title, plaintiffs and the defendant Nos. 1 to 5 and the plaintiffs are the absolute owners of the suit land. A declaration is also sought that said consent terms are bad in law. A further declaration to the effect that the right, title and interest created under the said 2 consent terms are not binding on the plaintiffs is sought. Permanent injunction is also sought against the defendant Nos. 6 to 10 from transferring, alienating or creating any third party right. I find that in the plaint, there is reference to an order dated 30.7.1964 passed under Section 4 of the Salesette Estates (Land Revenue Exemption Abolition) Act, 1951 . Amendment have challenged the order passed under Section-4 and 6 of the Act. This is sought to be done in order to buttress the contention of the plaintiffs that they are the owners of the suit property. It also appears that certain paragraphs of the amendment have been introduced because of what has been stated in an affidavit in reply dated 31.8.2006 taken out by the defendants at the notice of motion stage. From the contentions of the Para 24H onwards it appears that the defendants took up a defence that they were owners under a grant. This aspect has been dealt with in some of the paragraphs which are sought to be introduced by way of amendment. This chamber summons does not seek any amendment of the prayers as mentioned in the plaint. In my view on reading the amendments sought, it can only be said that the plaintiffs seek to introduce more details in support of the relief of declaration and ownership as already sought. It may be further stated that as far as plaintiffs’ suit is concerned, it has not reached the stage of trial. Issues have not been framed. No written statement is filed. In the circumstances, no prejudice will 3 be caused to the defendants if amendment is allowed at this early stage. In the circumstances, chamber summons is allowed in terms of prayer clause (a) and (b). Amendment to be carried out within eight weeks from today. Amendment is granted without prejudice to the rights and contentions that may be raised by the defendants. Chamber summons is disposed off. (R.S. MOHITE, J.)