1 PGK IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION Chamber Summons No.296 of 2010 IN Suit No.2048 of 2005 Azizur Rahman Faiz & ors. .. .. Plaintiffs v/s. Vinay Panditrao Pawar & ors. .. .. Defendants And Sulochana Ramesh Mehta & ors. .. .. Proposed Defendants Mr.Zal Andhyarujinha i/by M/s.Kadam & Co. Mr.Bharat Choudhary with Ms.Lata Wadhwani for Res.No.13. Mr.Sanjay Jain i/by M/s.Zohair & Co. for Res.Nos.6 and 7. ----- CORAM : SMT.ROSHAN DALVI, J. DATED : 9th July, 2010 P.C. : 1.This Chamber Summons is for amendment of the Plaint to bring on record further Defendants who are interested in and claim title to the suit property. Essentially, the Plaintiffs claim their title from one Oshiwara Land Development Company Private Limited (OLDC)confirmed by the members of Veera family (Veera). The proposed Defendants claim their title also from OLDC and Veera. The Plaintiffs claim that the Defendants have rights in respect of an adjacent property which has been inadvertently claimed also upon the suit property. The 2 proposed Defendants claim that they have title and accordingly, legal rights over the entire of the property claimed by the Plaintiffs, which forms 50% of the property claimed directly from their predecessor- in-title who in turn acquired rights from OLDC and Veera. 2.These disputed rights in respect of the same and/or the adjoining property would be best adjudicated upon hearing all the parties claiming title or legal rights to the property. Hence, the proposed Defendants are proper and necessary parties to the suit and must be heard in the suit in their own interest. 3.It is claimed that in the initial suit the knowledge of the appointment of the Court Receiver in an earlier partition suit being Suit No.1382 of 1996 was shown. The Plaintiffs actual possession is shown not to have been handed over to the Plaintiffs. By virtue of the amendments, the Plaintiffs claim diametrically different reliefs with regard to the Court Receiver s continuance. Whereas in the original plaint the Plaintiffs claim that the Court Receiver was to be discharged as he could not have been appointed in respect of the property purchased by the Plaintiffs, in the amendment, the Court Receiver is sought to be restrained from handing over possession to Defendant 3 No.18 in the suit. This relief is pressed for in view of the further facts which, the Plaintiffs state, came to their knowledge much later. 4.It is sought to be shown that the suit is barred by the Law of Limitation inasmuch as the Plaintiffs knew from the inception that the Court Receiver was appointed and they have not taken actual possession of the suit land which is shown to have been taken by the proposed Defendant No.18. Whether or not the actual knowledge can be imputed upon the Plaintiffs from the date of the suit would have to be considered in the trial. At present, the suit is not seen to be barred by the Law of Limitation from the averments in the plaint and the averments in the schedule to the Chamber Summons which would be a part of the plaint, if allowed. 5.The Plaintiffs, of course, have prayed for reliefs initially against the Defendants. There have been further transactions with the proposed Defendants. The Plaintiffs have sought to challenge those transactions separately. The Plaintiffs shall have to value the reliefs that they have claimed upon those transactions separately and pay the additional ad-valorem Court fee based upon their reliefs. 6.Hence, the following order:- 4 ORDER i)Subject to the Plaintiffs paying the additional ad- valorem Court fee in respect of the further reliefs prayed for in the schedule to the Chamber Summons, the Chamber Summons is allowed. The Court fee shall be paid within one week. ii)The plaint shall be amended within 2 weeks. Copy of the plaint served upon the Defendants shall also be amended within 2 weeks. The amended copy of the plaint shall be served upon the Respondents within 2 weeks. Advocate for the Respondents waives service of the amended writ of summons. iii)The Plaintiffs shall also amend the Notice of Motion already taken out and serve the same upon the newly added Defendants within 2 weeks. iv)The newly added Defendants shall be entitled to file their Written Statement. v)The Notice of Motion is adjourned to 9th August 2010. (SMT.ROSHAN DALVI, J.)