1 srk IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORIDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION Appeal No.334 of of 2009 In Chamber Summons No.884 of 2007 In Suit No.217 of 1981 Mr.Oommen Michael & ors. Appellants Vs. Shri Gayatriprasad Ramnaresh Panday & ors. Respondents Mr.Atul Damle i/b. M/s.Subhash Pradhan & Co. for appellants. Mr.Rakesh Pandey with Mr.M.U.Pandey for resp.nos.1 to 3. Mr.A.S.Rai for resp.nos.7 to 9. CORAM: B. H. MARLAPALLE & SMT. V.K. TAHILRAMANI, JJ. January 29, 2010. P.C. 1. Heard Mr.Damle, the learned counsel for the appellants who are the original plaintiffs in Suit No.217 of 1981 and the Appeal is directed against 2 the interlocutory order dated 31/7/2008 rejecting Chamber Summons No. 884 of 2007. The plaintiffs had sought amendment to the plaint by the said Chamber Summons taken out after about 26 years. 2. The Suit has been filed for specific performance of an agreement for sale dated 24th February 1971 in respect of land bearing Survey No.84, Hissa No.1, City Survey No.1505 situated at Chembur, Mumbai. By the proposed amendments the events that had taken place in the year 2003-2004 were sought to be brought on record. The learned trial Judge observed that the subsequent events were beyond the purview of the suit filed by the plaintiffs for specific performance of the agreement and the Chamber Summons taken out was obviously an attempt to protract the proceedings and delay the trial of the Suit. Two main events were sought to be brought on record viz. (a) on the neighbouring plot bearing CTS No. 1521 there was a construction put up, which was illegal and the said construction had partly encroached upon the suit plot, and (b) that the approach road available to the suit plot was obstructed because of the said construction which was allegedly without permission / unauthorised. 3. If the approach road was blocked, it is for the property owner to take 3 appropriate steps and there is a vague allegation of encroachment on some portion of the construction made on the neighbouring plot. The learned trial Judge was, therefore, justified in dismissing the Chamber Summons as being frivolous attempt to seek amendments which were in fact irrelevant to the main relief sought in the main suit i.e. for specific performance of the agreement for sale dated 24th February 1971. We do not see any error in the impugned order so as to entertain this appeal and, therefore, it must fail at the threshold. Appeal is dismissed in limine. (SMT. V.K. TAHILRAMANI,J.) (B. H. MARLAPALLE,J.)