:1: :1: :1: IN IN IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORDINARY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION CHAMBER SUMMONS NO.1589 OF 2007 IN SUIT NO. 3724 OF 2003 Vasant G.Paranjpe and anr. ...Plaintiffs Versus Vasudeo M.Paranjpe and anr. ....Defendants ====== Mr.M.G.Barve, Adv. for the plaintiffs. Mr.S.C.Thatte, Adv. for the Defendants CORAM: S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATED: 10TH APRIL, 2008. P.C. P.C. P.C. : : : 1. This is a Chamber Summons for amendment. 2. The plaintiffs desire to in-corporate para-3A in the plaint. 3. In the Affidavit-in-support of the Chamber Summons, it is urged that earlier proceedings were :2: :2: :2: taken out for amendment. Amendment was carried out to incorporate the approximate period of adoption based on the material that is available with the plaintiff. However, despite the earlier amendment being allowed vide Chamber Summons No. 226 of 2004 and Chamber Summons No.5629 of 2005, yet, during the course of the hearing of Notice of Motion No. 2385 of 2005, some pleas were raised and that is how it has become necessary to amend the plaint to incorporate the Applicant. The Application is with regard to the customary adoption prevalent amongst Chitpavan Brahmins originating from Konkan area, State of Maharashtra. It is in such circumstances, that the amendment is sought to incorporate paragraph-3A in the plaint. The Chamber summons is opposed by the Defendant and Mr.Thatte urges that this the fourth request to amend the plaint. The Applications for amendment were taken out earlier and when the lacunas in the pleadings were pointed out, the Notice of Motions were withdrawn and plaint was sought to be amended. Now, something that allegedly took place in the year 1917 is sought to be incorporated and introduced after a lapse of nearly 90 years. The plea raised in the Schedule is therefore clearly time :3: :3: :3: barred. In other words, the proposed amendments are hopelessly time barred. 4. In my view, it is not necessary that in every case, the court should go into the issue of limitation with regard to the amended pleas. The merits of the amendment, so also, whether they are arguable and the claim based thereupon is time barred or not are matters which can be left open and subject to the same, the amendments can be allowed. I propose to follow such a course, so that the defendants are not prejudiced. More so, when they are yet to file their Written statement. 5. However, there is substance in the contention of Mr.Thatte that this is the fourth Application for amendment and every time the plaint is sought to be amended the Interim application is withdrawn. This has caused considerable delay and the defendants are unnecessarily harassed. Therefore, they be compensated by payment of costs. 6. Accordingly, the Chamber Summons is allowed :4: :4: :4: and made absolute in terms of prayer clause (a) subject to all pleas of the defendants including limitation and maintainability of the suit being kept open. The plaint will be allowed to be amended only after the plaintiffs pay costs quantified at Rs.1500/- to the Defendants within a period of 4 weeks from today. 7. Mr.Barve, states that after the amendment is carried out within a period of two weeks from the date of payment of costs, amended plaint will be duly served and the Defendants shall have 8 weeks time to file their Written Statement from the date they receive the amended plaint. sd/- **********