1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION CHAMBER SUMMONS NO.1418 OF 2007 IN SUIT NO.1948 OF 1983 Sociedade De Fomento Industrial Pvt.Ltd. .. Plaintiffs Versus Tulsidar V. Patel & Ors. .. Defendants Mr.E.Kotwal with R.N.Bhagattjee i/b. Little & Co. for plaintiffs None for defendants. CORAM : S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATE : 8th April 2008 P.C. . Affidavits proving substituted service are taken on record and marked "X" for identification. Service has been effected by publishing a Notice in the newspapers and by affixing it. Advertisement has been published as early as 30th January 2008. There is no 2 affidavit in reply. This matter was placed yesterday and I was informed that the Advocate appearing for contesting defendant is busy in some other court in a part heard matter. Therefore, the matter was adjourned till today. Even today the same statement is made. However, there is no affidavit in reply. 2. All that the plaintiffs seek is to amend the plaint and incorporate the averments with regard to alternate claim for compensation/damages. Plaintiff now seeks compensation on the basis that the rates of immovable property in Mumbai have gone up. In such circumstances, in the schedule to the chamber summons, the alternate prayer is set out and averments in that behalf are also made. There is no change in the cause of action. The suit remains a suit for specific performance with alternate relief of compensation or damages. Originally, the quantum was set out. Now, it is 3 sought to be enhanced. Hence, there is no prejudice. Merely because the plaint is allowed to be amended and prayer clause is modified accordingly, does not mean that this Court has concluded the issue on merits. It would be open for the plaintiff to claim reliefs which are of specific performance or in the alternative for damages by proving their claim in the suit. Equally, the contesting defendant can dispute the claim and point out that not just specific performance but even alternate claim for damages should not be awarded. All pleas in that behalf are kept open. Chamber summons is made absolute in terms of prayer clause (a). The plaint is allowed to be amended subject to the all pleas including Limitation being kept open. Amendments to be carried out within two weeks from today. Amended plaint be served on the defendants within four weeks thereafter. Additional written statement if any, to be filed within six weeks from the date of service of amended plaint. 4 3. It is pointed out to me that Court Receiver is appointed by this Court and it is stated that the receiver is appointed of a property belonging to first defendant company in Suit No.2435 of 2005. The order passed by the Appellate Court in Appeal No.866 of 2005 is relied upon in that behalf. To my mind, that hardly makes any difference insofar as the chamber summons is concerned. The chamber summons is directed against the defendants, one of which is the company. It is not stated that the company ceases to exist any more. In such circumstances, the order of the appellate court cannot have any bearing on the relief claimed in the chamber summons. C.C. expedited. All concerned to act on an authenticated copy of this order. 5 (S.C.Dharmadhikari, J)