Maharashtra Institute Of Advance Electronics And Computer Technology v. Samatanagar Rahivasi Shikshan Sanstha And ANR .

28.wp.12677.2015.doc dik

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 12677 OF 2015 Maharashtra Institute of Advance Electronics & Computer Technology

...Petitioner

vs Samatanagar Rahivasi Shikshan Sanstha & Anr.

...Respondents

Mr Sandesh Deshpande for the Petitioner Mr K.D.Juvekar for the Respondents CORAM : N.M.JAMDAR, J.

21 SEPTEMBER, 2016 P.C. :

Heard learned counsel for the parties. Considering the nature of the controversy, the Petition is taken up for final disposal. By the impugned order dated 21 August 2015, the learned City Civil Court Judge has rejected the Chamber Summons for amendment of the plaint. The Petitioner has filed Suit No.3244 of 2003 initially in this Court and now transferred to the City Civil Court, Mumbai. In the suit, the Petitioner has prayed for a direction to the Respondent/ Defendant to pay an amount of Rs.2,49,128/- along with interest towards certain computer courses stated to be run by the Petitioner.

In this suit, an application was made for an amendment to change records from Partnership Firm to Private Limited Company and Pg 1 of 2

28.wp.12677.2015.doc from Partner to the Director. The learned counsel for the Petitioner submitted that the entire correspondence is carried out as Private Limited Company and the reference to the Partnership Firm was a mistake. It was submitted that various suits were filed, and therefore, this mistake was not realized. Learned counsel for the Respondent submitted that the amendment is sought at the belated stage as suit is of the year 2003.

Learned City Civil Court Judge has rejected the amendment on the ground that it is not subsequent event and the Petitioner is not diligent, and therefore, in view of bar under Rule VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the amendment cannot be granted. This bar is not absolute and under given circumstances, the Court can permit a party to amend the plaint. In the present case, the amendment sought is innocuous amendment and will not change the nature of the suit. Therefore, instead of rejecting the application for amendment, it could have been allowed by imposing the costs. No prejudice will be caused to the Respondent if the amendment is allowed at this stage, looking at the nature of the amendment. In the circumstances, the Writ Petition deserves to be allowed and accordingly is allowed in terms of prayer clause (a) subject to the Petitioner paying costs of Rs.5000/- to the Respondent within a period of three weeks from today. The amendment should be carried out after the payment of costs, within a period of four weeks thereafter. ( N.M.JAMDAR J. ) Pg 2 of 2