1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION CHAMBER SUMMONS NO.629 OF 2010 WITH CHAMBER SUMMONS NO.822 OF 2010 IN SUIT NO. 2655 OF 1989 Godrej & Boyce Mfg. Co. Ltd. ..Plaintiff. Vs. S.J.Nerurkar. ..Defendant. Mr. Chirag Balsara along with Mr. Tejas Deshmukh for the plaintiff. Mr. Kamal Khatta along with Mr. S. Nagvadaria i/by M/s. Mehta & Co. for the Defendant. CORAM : R.S. MOHITE, J. DATE : 20th July, 2010 PC : 1 Heard both sides. 2 In view of the letter dated 5.9.2008 issued by the Advocate for the defendant to the Advocate for the plaintiff, the documents admitted are marked as Exhibits and documents which are not admitted are marked for identification and will have to be proved by the plaintiff. Exhibits are being marked without any admission regarding the truth of the contents of the documents. The plaintiff will be entitled to lead such evidence as it thinks fit for establishing the truth of the documents. The documents are marked on the list annexed to the affidavit of the documents. 2 Office is directed to mark the documents accordingly. Chamber summons is disposed off. 2 Document at Sr. No.319 is marked as exhibit subject to whatever objections as raised by the defendant. As regards this document, objection will be decided at the stage of final argument. CHAMBER SUMMONS NO. 822 OF 2010 1 This is a chamber summons taken out by the original plaintiff for amendment of the plaint as per schedule. Suit is of the year 1989. Issues were framed in the year 2007 and the evidence commenced in the same year. Evidence of two witnesses of the plaintiff was completed by April,2010. This chamber summons for amendment of the plaint was taken thereafter on 14.6.2010. On perusing the Schedule, it appears that what is now sought to be added to the pleadings is certain suppression of facts in the written statement and a contention that in view of suppression of facts, that defendant is estopped by his conduct, representations made, assurance as given and obligations under taken. 2 Perusal of the plaint indicates that the suit has been filed by the plaintiff for a declaration that an agreement dated 3.12.1982, as modified in accordance with what is mentioned in 3 Para 10 of the plaint is valid and subsisting and for a decree of specific performance of the aforesaid modified agreement. In my view, for declaration as sought alleged suppression in the written statement is not required to be part and parcel of the plaintiff’s pleadings. 3 Other part of the Schedule seeks to bring on record what has occured in subsequent litigations between the parties. In my view, it is also not necessary that what has occured in these litigations should be made part and parcel of the pleadings for deciding the question as to whether prayers in the plaint ought to be granted. It is however, made clear that if there are any admissions given by the defendant in his statements, it will always be open to the plaintiff to confront the person making them to prove those admissions. if and when the said person steps into the witness box. While it is true that subsequent events can be admitted into pleading by way of amendment,. Subsequent events as mentioned in the schedule are not the events which would have any direct bearing on the issues as raised in the present suit. 4 For the aforesaid reasons and and also for the reason that prayer for amendment of the plaint has been made 22 years after the suit was filed, needs to be rejected. However, one of the 4 prayer being prayer clause (d) in the chamber summons is granted, by consent. 5 Advocate for the plaintiff states that plaintiff will deposit in this court interim rent, arrears of interim rent and future amount due as per the order dated 21.1.1998 specified in prayer clause (d). He states that arrears will be deposited in this court within 8-weeks from today. In the circumstances, Chamber summons is allowed only in terms of prayer clause (d) and it is dismissed with costs of Rs.5000/- so far as other prayers are concerned. The costs to be deposited in this court within two weeks from today. Court Commissioner taking evidence is requested to expedite the process of leading evidence and submit his report on or before 31.12.2010. (R.S. MOHITE,J.)