1 (901)APPEAL.672.2011-CHS.1100.11-S. 158.10.sxw mnm IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL/ CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPEAL NO.672 OF 2011 IN CHAMBER SUMMONS NO.1100 OF 2011 IN SUIT NO.158 OF 2010 M/s. Aesthetic Builders & Developers ...Appellant Vs. Madhuriben Kantilal Mehta & Ors. ...Respondents Mr.Zubin Behram Kamdin with mr. Diren Shah & Som Sinha, Advocates i/b. M/s. Vimla & Co., for Appellant Mr. D.H. Mehta with Mr. D.F. Sharma, Advocates for Respondents CORAM : MOHIT S. SHAH, C.J. AND MRS. ROSHAN DALVI, J. Date : 7 October 2011. P.C. 1. The appeal is directed against the order dated 6th September 2011-. The learned trial Judge of this Court allowed the Chamber Summons for amendment of the plaint in the following terms : “4. In the circumstances, the chamber summons is made absolute in terms of prayers (a), (b) and (c). However, as far as the pleadings regarding the legal necessities are concerned, the amendment is allowed only qua plaintiff No.3 and not the other plaintiffs. While carrying out the amendment, alteration shall be accordingly made. 5. The question of limitation cannot be gone into in this chamber summons for amendment, the plaintiffs’ case is that 2 (901)APPEAL.672.2011-CHS.1100.11-S. 158.10.sxw plaintiff Nos.3 and 4 came to know about the said agreement and conveyance only in the year 2008. Whether it is true or false relates to the merits of the matter. Further the question as to whether the additional plea on the ground of legal necessity is concerned is barred by limitation, is kept open. The amendment in this regard shall not relate back to the date of the filing of the suit but to the date of filing of the chamber summons.” 2. Since the learned single Judge has already made it clear that the question as to whether the additional plea on the ground of legal necessity is barred by limitation is kept open, and that the amendment shall not relate back to the filing of the suit but only to the date of filing of the chamber summons, the impugned order does not call for any interference. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. 3. Since the appeal is dismissed the notice of motion does not survive. Hence disposed of accordingly. 4. At this stage the learned Counsel for the appellant prays for stay of the operation of the order of the learned trial Judge for some time in order to have further recourse in accordance with law. Since the order under question only allows the amendment subject to clarification in favour of the appellant/defendant, the request is rejected. CHIEF JUSTICE ROSHAN DALVI, J.