Final Order 1

Order Details: Chamber summons
Pdf Text: 1
IN THE BOMBAY CITY CIVIL COURT AT GREATER BOMBAY
CHAMBER SUMMONS No.142 OF 2020.
(CNR NO. MHCC01-000959-2020)
IN
SUIT NO. 2395 OF 2019.
Indramani Mishra. …. Plaintiff.
V/s.
The Municipal Commissioner of Greater Mumbai.
...Defendant.
And.
Mr. Kamal Pasha Zaidy. ...Applicant/
Proposed Defendant No.8.
CORAM: HIS HONOUR JUDGE
SHRI. R. B. PARVEKAR
CITY CIVIL COURT
GR. MUMBAI
DATE : 13/01/2025
Adv. S.R. Dubey for the plaintiff.
Adv. Amar Patil for defendant.
Adv. Asif Shaikh for Applicant.
ORAL ORDER
This chamber summons is taken out by
intervenor/applicant to implead him as a necessary or proper
-- 1 of 7 --
2
party to the suit.
2. Read chamber summons, reply filed by plaintiff.
Perused documents placed on record by both the parties. Heard
both the sides.
3. By this chamber summons, applicant/intervenor
seeks permission to implead him as a necessary or proper party
to the suit mainly on the grounds that he is a landlord and
owner in respect of suit premises. On the other hand, plaintiff
contested present chamber summons by denying the status of
intervenor/applicant as a owner or landlord of the suit
premises. With this rival contentions, I would like to discuss
documents placed by both the parties as follows along with the
claim.
4. This is a suit for declaration and injunction against
notice issued under Section 351 of M.M.C. Act. From the
recital of plaint and relief sought, it is clear that this is not a
suit for declaration of ownership and title in respect of suit
premises. On perusal of photocopy of application dated
30.12.2015, it appears that one Kamal Pasha Zaidi filed
application in respect of unauthorised construction with BMC
authority. From the photocopy of application dated
07.01.2016, it is gathered that applicant/intervenor filed
application with B.M.C. authority with respect of alleged
-- 2 of 7 --
3
ongoing construction in suit premises. Application dated 07 t h
January, 2016 is supported the photocopy of notice dated
31.12.2015 in respect of action taken by B.M.C authority. The
photocopy of photographs speaks about the alleged un-
authorised ongoing construction. Photocopy of notice under
Section 351 of M.M.C. Act cleared the fact that notice in
respect of alleged un-authorised construction was issued to
plaintiff on 05t h August, 2019. On the contrary, the report of
B.M.C. official dated 07 t h January, 2016 speaks that demolition
of unauthorised construction at suit address was arranged due
to reconstruction of unauthorised construction. On perusal of
photocopy of application dated 14 t h March, 2016, 07t h May,
2018, 06t h September, 2018, 05 t h March, 2019 it appears that
applicant/intervenor constantly filed application with
M.C.G.M. authority for taking necessary steps in respect of
alleged unauthorised construction.
5. At this juncture, Ld. advocate for
applicant/intervenor submitted before the Court that he is a
landlord. Plaintiff being a occupant carried out alleged
unauthorised construction therefore, he is a necessary party to
the suit. Intervenor placed his reliance on Judgment dated 10 t h
January, 2023 in RAE & R Suit No. 1258/1901 of 2010 dated
10t h January, 2023 and in the case of Ashok Awasthi V/s.
Munna Khan.
-- 3 of 7 --
4
6. On the other hand, it is submitted on behalf of
plaintiff that applicant/intervenor is not the landlord or owner
of the suit premises. He has no locus-standi in the present
suit. Hence, he cannot be impleaded as a party to the
proceeding.
7. Before considering the rival submissions, it is
necessary to mention here that a necessary party is a party
whose presence is necessary in order to unable the Court
effectual and complete adjudication of the subject matter of
the suit and the proper party is a party in absence of whom the
decree cannot be effectively executed. On perusal of Judgment
passed by the Hon’ble Small Cause Court in RAE & R Suit No.
1295/1901 of 2010 dated 10.01.2023, it appears that the
present suit was instituted by applicant/intervenor against
plaintiff, in which the Hon’ble Small Causes Court passed
decree of eviction against plaintiff in respect of suit premises.
In the said judgment, it is specifically observed and answered
issue No. 6 in respect of status of applicant/intervenor as a
owner or landlord of suit premises. As per findings of issue
No. 6 recorded in said Eviction Suit defendant (plaintiff in
present suit) fails to prove that applicant/intervenor is not a
owner or landlord of suit premises. Applicant/intervenor also
placed roznama in Suit No. 3723 of 1964, which was
withdrawn by Dr. Sayyed Ali Zohad. Photocopy of extract of
-- 4 of 7 --
5
inspection of property are in respect of alleged unauthorised
construction. Therefore, from the documents placed on record,
it is gathered that eviction decree is passed in favour of
applicant/intervenor against plaintiff in respect of suit
premises. In effect, Valuable Property Rights of
applicant/intervenor are involved in the present suit. For
effective adjudication of subject matter of the suit, presence of
applicant/intervenor found to be necessary. The case laws
relied by applicant/intervenor is supported to his case.
Accordingly the submissions raised on behalf of plaintiff
cannot be accepted.
8. In the present case, as mentioned above, before the
Hon’ble Small Causes Court the plaintiff fails to prove that
applicant/intervenor is not a landlord or owner of suit
premises. Being a landlord presence of applicant/intervenor is
found to be necessary for the just decision of the suit.
Accordingly, in view of Order 1 Rule 10 (2) of CPC., I proceed
to pass following order:
ORDER
1. Chamber Summons No.142 of 2020 is allowed as follows:
i) Plaintiff is directed to implead intervenor/applicant
as a proper party to the suit in the array of defendant
ii) Plaintiff to carry out necessary amendment within
-- 5 of 7 --
6
14 days from the date of this order and filed amended
plaint on record.
2. Chamber Summons No.142 of 2020 is disposed off.
Date-13/01/2025. (R. B. Parvekar)
Ad-hoc Judge, City Civil Court
Gr. Mumbai
D i c t a t e d o n : 1 3 / 0 1 / 2 0 2 5 .
Ty p e d o n : 1 3 / 0 1 / 2 0 2 5 .
s i g n e d o n :
CERTIFIED TO BE TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF THE ORIGINAL
SIGNED JUDGMENT/ORDER”
14.01.2025 at 1.00 -p.m. Mrs. P.R.Wagh
UPLOAD DATE AND TIME NAME OF STENOGRAPHER
Name of the Judge (with Court
Room No.)
HHJ Shri R.B. Parvekar,(C.R.No.59)
Judge.,City Civil & Sessions Court,
Date of pronouncement of /Order 13.01.2025
Order signed by P.O. on 14.01.2025
order uploaded on 14.01.2025
-- 6 of 7 --
7
CERTIFIED TO BE TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF THE ORIGINAL
SIGNED JUDGMENT/ORDER”
09.01.2024 at 1.00 -p.m. Mrs. P.R.Wagh
UPLOAD DATE AND TIME NAME OF STENOGRAPHER
Name of the Judge (with Court
Room No.)
HHJ Shri R. B. Parvekar(C.R.No.59)
Judge.,City Civil & Sessions Court,
Date of pronouncement of /Order 08.01.2024
Order signed by P.O. on 08.01.2024
order uploaded on 09.01.2024
-- 7 of 7 --