PAPEYON DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD.versusMEHRUNNISA D. JAGIRDAR AND 5 ORS.

                                        1                  CHS906.11-29

          IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
              ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

                  CHAMBER SUMMONS NO.906 OF 2011
                 CHAMBER SUMMONS (L) NO.645 OF 2016
                  NOTICE OF MOTION NO.3687 OF 2010
                                 IN
                         SUIT NO.470 OF 2009

Papeyon Developers Pvt. Ltd.                )….Plaintiff
          V/s.
Mehrunnisa D.Jagirdar & Ors.                )....Defendants
         And
SBP Realtors Pvt. Ltd.                      )....Respondent
                                ----
Mr.D.V.Deokar a/w Mr.Pinakim Modi and Mr.Dhruvesh Parikh i/by
Parimal K.Shroff and Co. for plaintiff/applicant.
Mr.Farhan Dubash a/w Mr.Anosh Sequeria and Mr.S.Dalvi i/by
Siganporia and Dalvi for defendant nos.1, 5 & 6.
                                 ----
                                 CORAM : K.R.SHRIRAM,J
                                 DATE : 22.8.2017

P.C.:-

1            This chamber summons is taken out to implead           the

respondent and for carrying out consequential amendment to the

plaint.    The respondent though served, is not present and the

undertaking of Mr.Deokar for plaintiff/applicant to file affidavit of

service within one week, is accepted.



2            Mr.Dubash for defendant nos.1, 5 & 6 states that in the

Notice of Motion, defendants have taken out defence of limitation

which defence has been raised in the Chamber summons as well but


KJ
                                       2                  CHS906.11-29

the court is yet to frame any issue under Section 9A of the Code of

Civil Procedure, 1908. As held by this court in 1Immigrants Ideal

Producers Co-operative Society Ltd. & Anr. Vs. Jahanara Moiz

Dalal that issue raised under Section 9A of the Code of Civil

Procedure, 1908 will not come in the way of an amendment

application.

           Mr.Dubash in fairness agrees for the same. At the same

time, Mr.Dubash states that if the Court records that the amendment

will not be effective retrospectively but it will take effect from the date

the Chamber summons has been lodged and keep open the rights of

the defendants to raise issue of limitation, the Chamber summons

can be allowed.



3          Keeping open rights and contentions of defendants and

observing that amendment will not relate back from the date of the

suit, Chamber summons allowed in terms of prayer clause-(a).



4          Mr.Deokar for plaintiff/applicant states that pursuant to the

order of Division Bench, the plaint had already been amended and

the amendment so carried out should be accepted as amendment

pursuant to today's order.

           Mr.Dubash has no objection. Therefore, plaint need not

be re-amended.
1 2004 (1) Mh.L.J. 910

KJ
                                    3                CHS906.11-29




5         Amended plaint to be served within one week from today.

Should the defendants and the newly added defendants wish to file

additional written statement/written statement, the same to be filed

and copy served within 4 weeks of receiving amended plaint/plaint.

          Both the Chamber summons are allowed accordingly and

stand disposed.



          NOTICE OF MOTION NO.3687 OF 2010

1         This Notice of Motion to be listed for hearing in due

course.



                                          (K.R.SHRIRAM,J)




KJ