1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION CHAMBER SUMMONS NO.378 OF 2010 IN SUIT NO.824 OF 1997 M/s.Geena Engineering Services )..Plaintiffs Vs. M/s.Shipping Corporation of India Ltd., )..Defendants ---- Mr.Ashwin Shankar i/by Ruben Fernandes for the plaintiffs. Mr.Gaurav Joshi with Avinash Joshi i/by Mulla & Mulla for the defendants. ---- Coram : R.S.MOHITE,J Date : 16 th June, 2010 PC 1 This is a Chamber summons taken out by the original plaintiffs for amendment of the plaint. On reading the schedule, it appears that the contentions regarding part payments made by the defendants in April & July 1994 are already contained in paragraph-6 of the plaint. It is not necessary to repeat these averments. Based upon these averments if proved, it is always open to argue the question of limitation. In my view, amendment is not required for a proper decision of the suit. Chamber summons is therefore, dismissed. 2 SUIT NO.824 OF 1997 1 Advocate for the plaintiff states that the plaintiff does not want to file any further affidavit of PW-1 in lieu of examination-in-chief. In view of this statement, Commissioner to proceed with the cross-examination of PW-1. Advocate states that evidence should be voluminous. In the circumstances, Commissioner is directed to complete the examination of witnesses expeditiously and file a report in this Court as early as possible and within a period of 90 days from today. The Commissioner will be at liberty to exhibit the admitted documents. As far as disputed documents are concerned, admission of those documents will be considered after the report is received. It is clarified that cross-examination of disputed documents which may be marked for identification will be without prejudice to the rights of the parties to contend that the documents should not be admitted. (R.S.MOHITE,J) 3 4