MR. T.C. Santosh Menon now known as Santosh M. Menon vs Sunita Unni Nair — 102337/2024
Case under Code of Civil Procedure Section 9. Disposed: Contested--ALLOWED on 18th March 2026.
CHAMBER SUMMONS
CNR: MHCC010190532024
Filing Number
118825/2024
Filing Date
21-Oct-2024
Registration No
102337/2024
Registration Date
22-Oct-2024
Court
City Civil Court, Mumbai
Judge
2-Court 02 Addl Sessions Judge
Decision Date
18-Mar-2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--ALLOWED
Last updated 20-Jun-2026
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
-
1.MR. T.C. Santosh Menon now known as Santosh M. Menon
Adv. Mahesh Menon And Co.,
Respondent(s)
-
1.Sunita Unni Nair
Case History
-
Case disposedDisposed
-
18-Mar-2026
Chamber summonsView PDF
CASE SUMMARY The Bombay City Civil Court allowed plaintiff Santosh M. Menon's application to amend his plaint mid-trial, permitting him to incorporate a previously undiscovered 2010 notice demanding return of ₹30 lakh security deposit with 18% interest and correcting interest calculation dates. The court found the plaintiff satisfied the "due diligence" requirement under CPC Order VI Rule 17 by demonstrating the documents were unavailable when litigation commenced through his father's attorney, that amendments were clarificatory rather than introducing new causes of action, and that no irreparable prejudice would result if allowed. The court imposed ₹15,000 costs on the plaintiff and allowed the defendant to file an additional written statement. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
-
18-Mar-2026
Disposed
Court 02 Addl Sessions Judge
-
17-Mar-2026
Ch/S Orders
Court 02 Addl Sessions Judge
-
21-Feb-2026
C/S Hearing
Court 02 Addl Sessions Judge
-
06-Jan-2026
C/S Hearing
Court 02 Addl Sessions Judge
-
20-Nov-2025
C/S Hearing
Court 02 Addl Sessions Judge
-
20-Sep-2025
C/S Hearing
-
26-Jun-2025
C/S Hearing
Court 02 Addl Sessions Judge
-
27-Mar-2025
Rejoinder
Court 02 Addl Sessions Judge
-
24-Feb-2025
Rejoinder
Court 02 Addl Sessions Judge
-
29-Jan-2025
C/S Hearing
Court 02 Addl Sessions Judge
-
11-Nov-2024
First hearing
Initial hearing scheduled
-
21-Oct-2024
Case filed
Registration No. 102337/2024
CASE SUMMARY The Bombay City Civil Court allowed plaintiff Santosh M. Menon's application to amend his plaint mid-trial, permitting him to incorporate a previously undiscovered 2010 notice demanding return of ₹30 lakh security deposit with 18% interest and correcting interest calculation dates. The court found the plaintiff satisfied the "due diligence" requirement under CPC Order VI Rule 17 by demonstrating the documents were unavailable when litigation commenced through his father's attorney, that amendments were clarificatory rather than introducing new causes of action, and that no irreparable prejudice would result if allowed. The court imposed ₹15,000 costs on the plaintiff and allowed the defendant to file an additional written statement. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Explore other courts