Final Order 2

Order Details: Chamber summons
Pdf Text: 1
MHCC010006322019
IN THE BOMBAY CITY CIVIL COURT AT MUMBAI
CHAMBER SUMMONS NO. 102 OF 2023
IN
SUIT NO. 342 OF 2014
Smt. Rashmi Naresh Rathod ]..Applicant/
(Original Plaintiff)
V/s.
Maharashtra Housing and ]
Area Development Authority ]..Defendants
And
Mumbai Building Repair and ]
Reconstruction Board. ]..Respondent.
Advocate Ms. Vidya Kamble for the applicants/plaintiff.
Advocate Ms. Mangal Mangal for defendant No.1/MHADA.
CORAM : HIS HONOUR JUDGE
MR. VAIBHAV V. PATIL
(C.R.NO.09)
DATE : 2nd SEPTEMBER 2023
ORAL ORDER
Present Chamber Summons has been taken out by the
applicant/original plaintiff for carrying out amendment in the plaint as
per the Schedule annexed to the Chamber Summons.
2 It is the contention of the plaintiff that the plaintiff received
eviction notice from the respondent on 31.07.2018 directing the
-- 1 of 4 --
2
plaintiff to evict the suit premises. The present suit is filed in 2014 and
the same is subjudiced before this Court. Notice is issued under section
95-A(3) as amended in 1998 of the MHADA Act during the pendency of
the suit. Therefore, it is necessary to implead the respondent i.e.
Mumbai Building Repair and Reconstruction Board as defendant No.2 in
the present suit.
3. The proposed defendant/MHADA has not filed reply to the
Chamber summons, but the learned advocate for proposed defendant
argued the matter and opposed the Chamber Summons by submitting
that as per section 177 of the MHADA Act, the suit is not maintainable
and there is bar of jurisdiction and the amendment is also not
maintainable. Hence, it is prayed that the present Chamber Summons
be rejected.
4. Perused Chamber Summons and Affidavit. Heard the
learned advocates for both the parties. From rival submissions, it can be
gathered that the plaintiff has filed suit against the Maharashtra
Housing and Area Development Authority in the year 2014. According
to the plaintiff, during the pendency of the suit, he received eviction
notice from respondent/proposed defendant i.e. Mumbai Building
Repair and Reconstruction Board. Since the plaintiff has claimed title,
right and interest in respect of the suit premises as lawful owner and
having peaceful possession and since he received eviction notice from
proposed defendant, it would be just and proper to add proposed
defendant as party to the suit in order to resolve the disputes between
the parties and for finally adjudicating the matter on merits. Though
advocate for the defendant opposed the Chamber Summons by
submitting that the suit is not maintainable by bar of jurisdiction, at this
-- 2 of 4 --
3
stage, it is not necessary to go into merits of the case. Hence, I hold
that the Chamber Summons deserves to be allowed. In the result, I
proceed to pass the following order:-
ORDER
1. Chamber Summons No. 102 of 2019 is made
absolute.
2. The applicant/original plaintiff to carry out
amendment in the plaint as per the schedule annexed to
the Chamber Summons within 14 days and further
directed to place on record amended copy of the plaint.
3. The applicant/original plaintiff is directed to
supply amended copies of the plaint to the defendants.
4 Chamber Summons No. 102 of 2019 stands
disposed off accordingly.
(VAIBHAV V. PATIL)
Judge,
City Civil Court,
Date: 02/09/2023 Gr. Bombay.
Dictated on : 02/09/2023
Transcribed on : 02/09/2023
Signed on : 04/09/2023
-- 3 of 4 --
4
CERTIFIED TO BE TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF THE ORIGINAL
SIGNED JUDGMENT/ORDER.”
04/09/2023 At 04.30 P.M. MRS. SUPRIYA S.PAWAR
UPLOAD DATE AND TIME NAME OF STENOGRAPHER
Name of the Judge (With Court Room
Number)
HHJ MR. VAIBHAV V. PATIL
(C.R.NO.09)
Date of pronouncement of Judgment/
Order
02/09/2023
Judgment/Order signed by P.O. on 04/09/2023
Judgment/Order uploaded on 04/09/2023
-- 4 of 4 --