: 1 : SD 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 CHAMBER CHAMBER SUMMONS NO.321 OF 2009 SUMMONS NO.321 OF 2009 SUMMONS NO.321 OF 2009 IN IN IN SUIT SUIT SUIT NO.684 OF 1971 NO.684 OF 1971 NO.684 OF 1971 Thomas More Pereira ...Plaintiff V/s. Municipal Corporation of . Greater Bombay & Ors. ...Defendants Mr.S.S. Deshmukh i/b. D.R. Jhuriya for the Plaintiff. Mr.R.Y. Shirsikar for Defendant Nos.1 to 5. Mr.Mahendra Shah, Sr. Counsel, a/w. Mr.R.A. Shah i/b. Mansukhlal Hiralal & Co. for Defendant No.12. Mr.A.M. Saraogi for Defendant Nos.18, 20 and 21 in support of the Notice of Motion. CORAM CORAM CORAM : A.V. NIRGUDE, J. : A.V. NIRGUDE, J. : A.V. NIRGUDE, J. DATE DATE DATE : 26TH FEBRUARY, 2009. : 26TH FEBRUARY, 2009. : 26TH FEBRUARY, 2009. P.C.: P.C.: P.C.: 1. This Chamber Summons is taken out by Defendant Nos.20 and 21 seeking amendment to their written statement. Earlier way back in 1984, these Defendants had filed a common written statement. It was a short written statement saying that they would not admit the contents of the plaint on factual aspects but in principal they admit the Plaintiff’s case as against the Defendant-Municipal Corporation. They supported the claim of the Plaintiff that the : 2 : suit auction sale was illegal and deserves to be set aside. The Defendant Nos.20 and 21 now wish to add few facts to their written statement. These facts, according to them, had taken place way back prior to filing of the suit. It is the contention of the Defendant No.21 now that before filing of the suit at the relevant time, he was the only person residing in the suit property. He was using a small flat and that he had claimed tenancy in respect of the flat against his own mother-the original Plaintiff in this suit. He said the Municipal Corporation had served several notices of demands etc. of property taxes on him and that he had shown those notices to his mother. He is trying to suggest that all his family members including his mother were neglecting the suit property and that all of them including he himself were interested in selling of the suit property. He also suggested that at that time the property was not giving any income to the family and was a liability etc. 2. The amendment sought should be refused for two reasons; firstly the facts that these Defendants are trying to add to their written statement which are mostly not relevant to the issues involved in the suit and secondly there is delay in making this : 3 : application. In 1984 the Defendants were quite aware of their rights qua the suit property and also as against their mother-the original Plaintiff. At that time, they could have certainly made their submissions in the written statement. Now they say that at that time they were under the thumb of their mother. This again is not acceptable because even in 1984, these Defendants were major and had their own mind to consider their position. Even otherwise, their mother died in 1998 and since then they were free from their mother’s influence. Even then they did not take this step. The application for amendment, therefore, deserves to be dismissed. 3. The Chamber Summons stands dismissed. [A.V. [A.V. [A.V. NIRGUDE, J.] NIRGUDE, J.] NIRGUDE, J.]