Allowing amendments to a plaint requires clarity on possession claims, which should not evade established jurisdictional considerations.

1. This is a Chamber Summons for amendment of the plaint as per the draft contained in the Schedule to the Chamber Summons. The proposed amendments have been vigorously and vehemently opposed and in order to consider whether the application should be allowed, a few necessary facts may be set out :
The main prayer in the plaint is for an injunction. The Plaintiffs have alleged that they agreed to purchase from the defendants the premises mentioned in the suit. Their case in the plaint is that at a meeting of the Managing Committee of the defendants, held on 28th May, 1966 it was resolved that immediate possession of the premises mentioned in the suit should be handed over to the plaintiffs. The Plaintiffs also refer to a letter written by the plaintiffs on 2nd June 1966 wherein it has been recorded that possession has been handed over to the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs further allege that the plaintiffs have paid the full price in respect of the suit premises even though they were in an incomplete state relying upon the premises of the defendants that they would complete the construction thereof, subsequently. The further case in the plaint is that on or about 21st October 1968 under the orders of the Secretary, Maintenance Committee, of the defendants, the locks of the premises situate on the ground floor, viz., the hall and the flat, were forcibly broken open and that the bricks from incomplete walls of the flats on the 10th floor of the building were being removed by breaking the walls and the same were brought down on the ground floor. The plaintiffs have contended that the defendants or the members of their Maintenance Committee have no right whatsoever to enter into or remain in or upon the suit premises and that their action amounts to trespass. There is only one main prayer in the plaint. By this prayer the Plaintiffs have asked for a permanent injunction restraining the defendants, their servants and agents from in any manner entering or remaining in or upon the suit premises and from committing any trespass thereupon and / or from in any manner damaging the same and / or from carrying out or altering the construction work of the suit premises and / or from removing the bricks and other building materials from the construction work so far carried out in the said premises and / or from disturbing or interfering with the plaintiffs' possession, use and occupation of the suit premises.

2. The plaint in the suit was originally filed in the Bombay City Civil Court on 2nd November 1968 and the same was numbered as suit No. 7480 of 1968. Pursuant to the decision of the Division Bench of this Court reported in (1969) 71 Bom. LR 340(344) : (AIR 1969 Bom. 423) and in view of the averments in paragraph 8 of the plaint wherein the plaintiffs averred that the subject - matter of the suit was not susceptible of monetary evaluation and paid fixed Court Fees of Rs. 30/- the plaint was on 9th November 1968 ordered to be returned for presentation to the proper Court, on 29th November 1968 the plaint with the necessary alterations was filed in this Court and the suit was numbered as Short Cause Suit No. 788 of 1968. The plaintiffs have also taken out a Notice of Motion in the suit which is still pending.

3. Thereafter the State Legislature enacted Maharashtra Act No. IX of 1970 which came into force on 16th March 1970. The plaintiffs thereafter took out a Chamber Summons dated 6th April 1970 in accordance with the provisions of S. 6 (2) (c) of the said Act. By this Chamber Summons the plaintiffs sought a direction from this Court that the suit along with the Notice of Motion dated 29th November 1968 whi