S. J. Vazifdar, J. - (1.) This is the plaintiff's Chamber Summons to amend the plaint.
(2.) The suit is filed for specific performance of an agreement entered into between the plaintiffs and defendants nos. 1 to 5; for a declaration that the termination thereof is wrongful and that certain orders passed by defendant No.6, Bombay Municipal Corporation are illegal and for a permanent injunction restraining defendant nos. 7 to 10 from developing the suit property.
(3.) The amendment would normally have been allowed. They are merely legal submissions based on facts which had already been stated in the plaint and to bring on record a subsequent development namely a notice under section 164 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, dated 15 th March 2011. The only opposition to the chamber summons is based on the provisions of Order VI rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, as amended by the Code of Civil Procedure (Amendment) Act, 2002, which read as under:- "17. Amendment of pleadings. The Court may at any stage of the proceedings allow either party to alter or amend his pleading in such manner and on such terms as may be just, and all such amendments shall be made as may be necessary for the purpose of determining the real questions in controversy between the parties: Provided that no application for amendment shall be allowed after the trial has commenced, unless the Court comes to the conclusion that in spite of due diligence, the party could not have raised the matter before the commencement of trial." The contention is that the trial had commenced prior to the present Chamber Summons and that therefore unless the court comes to the conclusion that in spite of due diligence the plaintiffs could not have raised the matter the amendment ought to be disallowed. ;