1 SC4939.

03

INTHEBOMBAYCITYCIVILCOURTATBOMBAY

ChamberSummonsNo.1206of2015
In
S.C.SuitNo.4939of2003

VirendraV.Kapdi&Ors. ..Plaintiffs
V/s.
VithalG.Kapuskar&Ors. ..Defendants
And
M/s.AddiPropertiesPvt.Ltd. ..Respondents

Coram:HisHonourJudge
ShriS.D.DARNE
Dated:6thJanuary,2016
(C.R.No.1)

AdvocateMr.DAThoratforplaintiffs.
AdvocateMr.SanjayPatankarfordefendantno.2.
AdvocateMr.GauravGopalfordefendantno.3.

ORALORDER

ThisChamberSummonsistakenoutbytheplaintiffsfor
amendmentaswellasadditionofthepartyasdefendantno.4withthe
contentionthatinthissuitfiledin2003,defendantno.3wasaddedas
subsequentassigneeandduringpendencyofthatChamberSummons,
plaintiffscametoknowthatthecitysurveyno.1196(B)apartofthe
suitpremiseswastransferredtotheproposeddefendantin2009but
said fact was not disclosed by defendants till then. Thus this
respondent isa necessary party to be added asdefendantand there
beingsubsequentevent,heneedstomakeamendmentinthebodyof
the plaint as proposed and amendment is necessary to decide
controversybetweentheparties.
 2 SC4939.03

2 Theproposeddefendanti.e.respondenthereinobjectedthe
ChamberSummonsforhisimpleadmentasdefendantcontendingthat
plaintiffshavenocauseofactionagainsthimandevensuitisbarredby
limitation.Furtherthereisnoprivityofcontractbetweenplaintiffsand
him,thustheyarenotnecessaryparty. Itisfurtherstatedthatthere
has been a transfer of business under the agreement dated 28 th
August,2009,thusthereisnoassignment.

3 Noreplyisfiledbyotherexistingdefendants. However,
theymadesubmissionorallywhenthepartieswereheard. Plaintiffs
soughttoaddthisrespondentasdefendantno.4asassigneepending
suit. Contention of this respondent is that there is only transfer of
business under the said agreement. Thus agreement between the
proposedrespondentandtheexistingdefendantisnotdisputed.Nowit
istobeseenwhetherthereisassignmentornot.Butthataspectcould
beconsideredonmeritandforthatthisrespondentneedstobeadded
asdefendant.Further,theamendmentoftheplaintasproposedinthe
schedule being based upon subsequent event needs to be allowed.
Hence,inmyopinion,thisChamberSummonsdeservestobeallowed
withfollowingorder:

ORDER

1) ChamberSummonsNo.1206/2015isallowed.
2) Respondentbeaddedasdefendantno.4.
3) Proposedamendmentintheplaintisalsoallowed.
4) Necessaryamendmentbecarriedoutwithintwoweeksin
theplaintandamendedcopyoftheplaintbeservedonthe
 3 SC4939.03

existingdefendantandsuitsummonsonthenewly
addeddefendantno.4.

06/01/2016 (S.D.DARNE)
Judge,
CityCivilCourt,Gr.Mumbai

Dictatedon:06/01/2016
Transcribedon:06/01/2016
SignedbyHHJon:07/01/2016