1 ash IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 420 OF 2003 Shri Rama Gaurya Bhaye, ) since deceased through his heirs - ) 1(a) Shri Anant Rama Bhaye & Ors. ).. Petitioners Vs Maharashtra Housing & Area Development ) Authority & Ors. ).. Respondents -- Shri R.P. Lole for the Petitioners. -- CORAM : A.S.OKA, J. DATE : 10th MARCH, 2010 ORAL JUDGMENT : . Heard learned counsel appearing for the Petitioners. The Petitioners are the original Plaintiffs. The Petitioners have challenged the judgment and order dated 22nd February, 2002 passed by the learned Trial Judge by which a Chamber Summons taken out by the Petitioners for amendment of the Plaint has been rejected. The submission of the learned counsel appearing for the Petitioners is that the Chamber Summons has been rejected on a completely erroneous ground. He submitted that there is no prohibition against introducing a new cause of action on the basis of the facts which are revealed during the pendency of the suit. He submitted that the proposed amendment on the contrary was necessary to avoid 2 multiplicity of proceedings. None appears for the Respondents. 2. I have perused the substantive prayers in the Plaint. The 1st prayer is for perpetual injunction restraining the Maharashtra Housing & Area Development Authority – Respondent No.1 from transferring the tenancy of a room in dispute in the name of 3rd Respondent or anybody else. A prayer for injunction was also made restraining the 1st Respondent from handing over possession of a new premises in lieu of Room No.12 to the 3rd Defendant or anybody else, except the Petitioners. Another prayer is that the allotment, if any, of any premises in lieu of the said Room No.12 is illegal, null and void. The 3rd prayer was for injunction restraining the Respondents from dispossessing the Petitioners from the transit camp accommodation. In the Chamber Summons, a case was made out that during the pendency of the suit, inspection of the documents was given to the Petitioners. From the documents, it was revealed that the 1st Respondent had already issued a letter of offer dated 21st August, 1993 in the name of 3rd Respondent. In the letter of offer, it was stated that the 3rd Respondent will be entitled for allotment of a gala in the reconstructed building in lieu of Room No.12. The documents disclosed that even the possession of a gala in the newly constructed building has been handed over to the 3rd Respondent. Therefore, an amendment was sought for challenging the said action of the 1st Respondent by issuing a letter of allotment to the 3rd Respondent and of handing over possession of a gala in the reconstructed building. The prayer in the Chamber Summons was for 3 adding the challenge to the said actions. Another prayer was for incorporating certain additional prayers. The first additional prayer is for a declaration that the purported transfer of tenancy effected by the 1st Respondent in favour of the 3rd Respondent in respect of Room No.12 is illegal, null and void. The 2nd additional prayer sought to be added is for quashing and setting aside the letter of allotment and the letter of handing over of possession and the 3rd additional prayer is for passing a decree for possession in respect of the premises in the reconstructed building. The suit was filed by the Petitioners in the month of October, 1993. The Chamber Summons was moved in the year 2002 on the basis of the facts revealed during the course of inspection of the documents given to the Petitioners by the concerned Respondents. The suit was filed for preventing transfer of tenancy and the allotment in favour of the 3rd Respondent. During the pendency of the suit, it was realized that in the year 1993 itself, transfer of tenancy was effected and possession of reconstructed tenement was handed over to the 3rd Respondent. Therefore, the proposed amendment was necessary for preventing multiplicity of proceedings. Even if the amendment is permitted, the issue of bar of limitation is always open which can be agitated by the concerned Defendants. The amendment could not have been declined on the ground that a new cause of action has been introduced. The suit will be governed by the unamended Rule 17 of Order VI of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. In the circumstances, the impugned order deserves to be set aside and I pass the following order. 4 (a) The impugned order 22nd February, 2002 is quashed and set aside. (b) The Chamber Summons No.80 of 2002 is made absolute. (c) Amendment to be carried out within two weeks from the date on which the writ of this order is received by the Trial Court. (d) It will be open for the Respondents to file additional written statement within a period of eight weeks from the date on which the amended copy of the Plaint is served to them. (e) All contentions of the parties including the contention of bar of limitation are expressly kept open. (f) The rule is made absolute in above terms. (A.S.OKA, J)