1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION CHAMBER SUMMONS NO.1281 OF 2008 IN SUIT NO.2197 OF 2008 Surindra Engineering Company Limited & Anr. .... Plaintiffs. V/s Mandeep A Pahwa and Ors. ....Defendants. And and Sharda Subhash Yadav and Ors. .... Respondents. Mr. Sanjay Jain with Ishwar Nadkarni with Mr. Jagdish Chaudhary i/b Nadkarni & Associates for plaintiffs. Ms Swapnil Khatri i/b Wadia Ghandy & Co. for defendant Nos. 1 and 2. Mr. Rajesh Patil i/b Mahesh Jani for defendant No.6. Mr. V. Kumar i/b Mr. Anil Agarwal for defendant No.7. Mr. I.M. Vora i/b Bipin Joshi for Respondent No.2. CORAM: V.M. KANADE, J. DATE : 5TH AUGUST, 2009 2 P.C.: 1. Heard the learned Counsel for plaintiffs and the learned Counsel for defendants. 2. This Chamber Summons is taken out by plaintiffs for amendment of the plaint in terms of the schedule which is annexed to the Chamber Summons. It is submitted that after the suit was filed and the notice of motion was taken out by plaintiffs, from the affidavit in reply filed by the defendants opposing grant of ad-interim, the plaintiffs learnt that defendants had executed certain documents viz agreement of sale dated 9 th October, 1994 and Power of Attorney dated 19 th October, 2004. It is submitted that since the plaintiffs came to know about the said events after the affidavit in reply was filed by defendants, they have filed this Chamber Summons for incorporating the said facts in the plaint for the purpose of challenging the agreements which have been executed by defendants who, in turn, have executed certain documents with respondents in Chamber Summons. Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.2 in Chamber Summons has submitted that the said averments which are sought to be included in the plaint are not subsequent events since the said agreements were 3 executed in 2005 and the plaint was filed in 2008. Secondly, it is submitted that no averment is made in the affidavit in support that the respondents are proper and necessary parties. 3. Counsel appearing on behalf of defendant No.6 has invited my attention to para 78-C in the schedule to the Chamber Summons. It is submitted that after the ad-interim relief was refused by this Court and after the appeal which was filed by plaintiffs against against the said order of refusal of grant of ad-interim relief, present Chamber Summons has been filed. He invited my attention to the averments made in the said paragraph 78-C and he submitted that such averments cannot not now be incorporated in the plaint. 4. In my view, taking into consideration the fact that the plaintiffs now want to challenge the subsequent documents which have been executed by defendants herein and since the said information regarding the said agreements became known to him after affidavit in reply was filed, plaintiffs have right to amend the plaint and challenge the documents which were executed between defendants and the added respondents. No prejudice would be caused to defendants if the said amendment is allowed since defendants would have right to file additional 4 written statement. 5. Under the circumstances, Chamber Summons is allowed in terms of prayer clause (a). Amendment to be carried out within four weeks. Copy of the amended plaint be served within two weeks thereafter. 6. Liberty to apply. (V.M. KANADE, J.)