1 acd IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION CHAMBER SUMMONS NO. 1469 OF 2009 IN SUIT NO. 900 OF 2002 Smt. Hemlata H. Naik ...Plaintiff. Vs. Smt. Kusum D. Chogle & Ors. .. Defendants. ---- Mrs. N.V. Sanglikar, for the Plaintiff. Mrs. S.A. Dhamale, for Defendant No.2. Mr. H.S.S. Murthy with Piyush Shah for Defendant No.8. None for other Defendants. ---- CORAM: R.Y. GANOO J. DATED : 23RD MARCH, 2010 P.C. 1. Heard learned Advocates on the both sides. 2. Defendant No.1 is sought to be deleted by the present amendment. In addition to that the plaint is sought to be amended by adding certain averments in the plaint. 3. In all 34 persons are sought to be joined as Defendants who are the flat purchasers and the Co-Operative Society is also sought to be joined as Defendant. 4. After having heard the learned Advocates on the both sides, and perusing the affidavit-in-reply, I am inclined to observe that the 2 Plaintiff can be permitted to amend the plaint and bring before this Court the lis in proper manner. The argument advanced by Mr. Murthy, learned counsel appearing for Defendant No.8 that amendment prayer clause (e) has the effect of challenging certain transactions which were already in existence at the time of instituting the suit and was well within the knowledge of the Plaintiff and hence, the amendment would relate to certain facts could be challenged within the particular time frame and challenging the same by amendment would mean claim beyond the period of limitation is sought to be placed before Court. In so far as this aspect is concerned, I am inclined to observe that the suit is instituted for diverse reliefs and the Plaintiff by amendment are asking for certain reliefs which are required to be sought after the suit has been prosecuted by the Plaintiff for a substantially long time after the suit has been prosecuted. In my view in order to decide the the lis in the proper perspective, amendment can be granted. Merely because of amendment is granted, it does not mean that the Court has accepted the correctness of the averments made in the schedule to the Chamber Summons. All questions are left open. The Defendants can raise appropriate pleas in the suit. 5. Mr. Murthy, learned Advocate for Defendant No.8 submitted that his client is interested in moving the Addl.Prothonotary and Senior Master for speaking to the Minutes as regards order dated 3.12.2007 so as to seek a clarification and have an order that the suit is dismissed against 3 Defendant No.8 also. He submitted that till such proceedings are decided by the Addl. Prothonotary & Senior Master, this Chamber Summons should not be considered and should be dismissed as pre mature. In so far as this aspect is concerned merely because the Chamber Summons is granted that does not alter the position so far as Defendant No.8 is concerned. If Defendant No.8 is successful in getting an order from the Addl. Prothonotary & Senior Master that the suit is dismissed qua him, the plaint as amended would get dismissed. 6. Hence, I pass the following order dismissing the Chamber Summons. i) The Chamber Summons is dismissed in terms of prayer clause (a) and (b-1). There shall no order as to costs. ii) Plaintiff to amend the plaint on or before 23.4.2010. Plaintiff to serve upon the Defendants amended copy of the plaint on or before 26th July, 2010. 7. Stand over to 27th July, 2010 for directions. (R.Y. GANOO J.)