1 chs1665-10 vai IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION CHAMBER SUMMONS NO.1665 OF 2010 IN SUIT NO.2436 OF 2010 Nagardas S. Dholakia ....Plaintiff V/s. Satish J. Dattani & Anr. ....Defendants Mr.Rajiv Narula with Mr.A. Dasgupta i/b Jhangiani, Narula & Associates for the Plaintiff. Mr.D.D. Mehal i/b D.M. Legal Associates for Defendant No.1. Mr.Ryan D’Souza with Mr.Jose George for Defendant No.2. CORAM : S.J. VAZIFDAR, J. DATE : 7TH DECEMBER, 2011. P.C. :- 1. This is the plaintiff’s chamber summons to amend the plaint. The suit is filed for specific performance of an agreement dated 8.6.1996 read with an agreement dated 6.1.2005. 2. A previous agreement entered into in the year 1994 between defendant No.1 and the owners listed the tenants which include the plaintiff and the proposed defendant. The proposed defendant is the plaintiff’s daughter-in-law. 3. Under the said agreement dated 8.6.1996, permanent 2 chs1665-10 alternate accommodation was to be provided by the defendants to the tenants. According to the plaintiff, separate alternate accommodation inter-alia was to be provided to him and to the proposed defendant as well as to another daughter-in-law of the plaintiff. 4. The plaintiff filed Notice of Motion No.2497 of 2010. In the affidavit in reply, the defendants annexed the agreement dated 1.11.2006 and a writing dated 28.1.2009 and contended on the basis thereof that the plaintiff’s rights were also subsumed therein. In other words, according to the defendants, the plaintiff was not entitled to a separate permanent alternate accommodation. 5. By this amendment, the plaintiff seeks to clarify that the documents relied upon by the defendants were only in favour of the proposed defendant and that the plaintiff signed the same only at the instance of the defendants and in view of the fact that the documents were in respect of the allotment to his daughter-in-law. 6. Whether the plaintiff’s contentions are correct or not is a different matter altogether. It is not necessary in an application for amendment to express any opinion in that regard. 7. The contention that the proposed amendment seeks specific performance in favour of the proposed defendant is not well founded. By the proposed amendment, the plaintiff merely seeks to establish that the documents relied upon by the defendants do not discharge their obligations qua the plaintiff. 3 chs1665-10 8. In the circumstances, the chamber summons is made absolute in terms of prayer (a). The amendments to be carried out within two weeks from today. This order is without prejudice to the pending interlocutory proceedings.