IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
CHAMBER SUMMONS NO. 1791 OF 2011
SUIT NO. 119 OF 2001
M/s. R.K. Patel Engineers & Contractors Pvt. Ltd.
A Private Limited Company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956, having
its Registered office at A/101, 102,Mithila Apartment,Opposite Syndicate bank, S.V. Road,Kandivali (West), Mumbai – 400 0067
and having its administrative office at215, J.K. Chambers, 2nd floor,Sector 17, Vashi,Navi Mumbai – 400 705… Plaintiff
1 City & Industrial Development
Corporation of Maharashtra Ltd.
incorporated under the Companies
Act, 1956, having its Head office at
CIDCO Bhavan, CBD, Belapur,Navi Mumbai 400 614 and its
Registered office at Nirmal,2nd floor, Nariman Point,Mumbai 400 021.
2 M.V. Mukundan
Executive Engineer (ROB-I),
CIDCO, having office at CTPC,CIDCO Bhavan, Rear Wing,Belapur.. Defendants
Shraddha Talekar PA 1/4
Ms.Shilpa Kapil for Plaintiff.
Mr.G.S.Hegde a/w. Ms.P.M.Bhansali for Defendants.
CORAM : K.R.SHRIRAM, J.
DATED : 22ND JANUARY, 2014 ORAL JUDGMENT :
1 The Chamber Summons is taken out by the Plaintiff to carry out the amendment as set out in the Schedule annexed thereto. The Plaintiff in the affidavit in support has averred that they had changed the Advocate and when the Plaint was considered by the newly appointed Advocate, it was observed that certain better particulars were not included in the Plaint. They have also averred that certain averments and documents which were necessary to determine the real question in controversy between the parties were also missed out.
2 Mr.Hegde, counsel appearing for the Defendants opposed the application. In the affidavit-in-reply filed by the Defendant No.1, they have stated that issues have already been framed and that the amendment is sought to be made in order to nullify the defence of the Defendants on the issues of jurisdiction and maintainability.
3 It is trite law that the Court has to take a liberal view in allowing the application for amendment which are filed prior to the commencement of Shraddha Talekar PA 2/4 3 12.chs.1791.11 s.119.2001.doc the trial and which are necessary to decide the matter in controversy. In view of the proviso to Order VI, Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, the Court has wide power and unfettered discretion to allow the amendment at any stage of proceedings. The main purpose of allowing the amendment is to minimize litigation. In the judgment reported in 2012(1) Mh.L.J. 856 in the case of Parmeshwar s/o Dhondiba Umbre vs. Mahadeo s/o Waman Raut & Ors., the Court has held in paragraph Nos.7, 8 and 9 which read as under :
“7 I find considerable force in the arguments of the Counsel for the petitioner that, to put an end to the controversy raised in the suit, application Exhibit-70 ought to have been allowed by the trial Court. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Surender Kumar Sharma (supra) in Para- 7 has taken a view that, even if the prayer for amendment was belated one then also, the question that needs to be decided is to 1 see whether by allowing the amendment, the real controversy between the parties may be resolved. It is further held that, it is well settled that under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, wide powers and unfettered discretion have been conferred on the Court to allow amendment of the pleadings to a party in such a manner and on such terms as it appears to the Court just and proper. Even if, such an application for amendment of the plaint was filed belatedly, such belated amendment cannot be refused if it is found that for deciding the real controversy between the parties, it can be allowed on payment of costs. (Emphasis supplied).
8 Therefore, it follows from the aforementioned authoritative pronouncement of the Hon’ble Supreme Court that, even if the amendment prayed for is belated, while considering such belated amendment, the Court must bear in favour of doing full and complete justice in the case where Shraddha Talekar PA 3/4 4 12.chs.1791.11 s.119.2001.doc the party against whom the amendment is to be allowed, can be compensated by cost.
9 Therefore, taking overall view of the matter, in my considered view, in the present case also, the application at Exhibit-70 filed by the plaintiff was only to add better particulars, and such better particulars in the plaint are to be added since due to mistake of the Advocate engaged by the plaintiff, said better particulars were not included though the application of the plaintiff for amendment of the plaint at Exhibit-66 came to be allowed by the trial Court. Therefore, application Exhibit-70 filed by the plaintiff deserves to be allowed. …..”
In this case, only issues have been framed. Parties have not even filed the affidavit of documents or affidavit in examination-in-chief. In the circumstances, the Chamber Summons is allowed in terms of prayer clause
(a). Amendment to be carried out within two weeks from today and a copy of the amended Plaint to be served upon the Defendants on or before 12 th February 2014. Should the Defendants desire to file additional written statement, the same to be filed on or before 14th March 2014.
(K.R. SHRIRAM, J.)