Final Order 1

Order Details: Chamber summons
Pdf Text: CNR NO.MHCC01-001110-2019
IN THE CITY CIVIL COURT FOR GREATER BOMBAY
AT BOMBAY
CHAMBER SUMMONS NO.211 OF 2019
IN
S.C. SUIT NO.334 OF 2014
1. Shendurjane (Madhali Ali) & Ors. ]....Interveners.
In the Matter Between
Laxman D. Jagtap ]....Plaintiff.
Versus
1. Shendurjane (Madhali Ali) & Ors. ]... Defendants.
CORAM : HIS HONOUR JUDGE
SHRI A.N. MARE
(C.R. No.09)
DATE : 2nd April, 2019.
Mr. P.P. Killedar, Advocate for interveners.
Mr. B.K. Raje, Advocate for plaintiff.
Mr. Gaikwad, Advocate for Defendants.
O R D E R
1. By this Chamber Summons 21 interveners have sought a direction
to the plaintiff to add them as defendants, they being the necessary and
proper parties to the suit.
2. It is the case of interveners that, they were the members of body
of persons who instituted the suit in the Court of Small Causes,
Mumbai, being Suit No.809 of 1986. The suit came to be decreed in
-- 1 of 5 --
2 CHS 21119 IN S.C. SU 33414
their favour, declaring them as tenant in the suit premises. Now the
plaintiff has filed suit against the Trust seeking declaration of the Trust
being “Trespasser”. It is necessary to join them as defendants in the suit
as they are the necessary and proper parties. Various grounds are also
raised objecting maintainability of the suit.
3. In reply to the Chamber Summons the plaintiff has stated that the
Chamber Summons is malafidely taken out to delay the proceedings in
the Suit. A suit bearing No.809 of 1986 was filed by the Interveners.
Intervener No.1 was however, unregistered. During the pendency of the
suit intervener No.1 Trust got registered itself. The said suit was decreed
by the Court declaring intervener No.1 as a tenant. Plaintiff filed an
Appeal against said decree. Intervener Nos.2 to 21 never filed cross
objection or Appeal or an Application under Order 1 Rule 10 of Civil
Procedure Code to join them as parties in the Appeal. Intervener No.1
filed a Writ Petition before the Hon'ble High Court which came to be
dismissed.
4. Perused. Heard.
5. The Interveners have filed written notes of arguments which is
nothing but a replica of Chamber Summons.
6. This being a Chamber Summons for impleading the interveners as
necessary and proper parties to the suit, provisions of Order 1 Rule 10 of
Civil Procedure Code are squarely attracted. Thus it will have to be
examined whether the presence of interveners is required to decide the
present suit. The Intervener No.1 is already defendant No.1 in the suit.
-- 2 of 5 --
3 CHS 21119 IN S.C. SU 33414
Likewise the Intervener Nos. 3 and 4 are the defendant Nos. 5 and 6 in
the present suit. The Chamber Summons itself mentions in its title that
the Intervener Nos.9, 12 to 16, 19 and 20 are no more. In such
circumstances, the Chamber Summons taken out to implead Interveners
No.1, 3, 4, 9, 12 to 16, 19 and 20 is apparently not maintainable.
7. The Judgment in Suit No.809 of 1986 reveals that only Intervener
No.1 was declared as tenant which was an unregistered Trust at the
relevant time which got itself registered during the pendency of suit, as
evident from the observations in the Judgment of the Small Causes
Court. Thus present defendant No.1 is nothing but the Trust. The
plaintiff has filed, along with the plaint, a copy of registration Certificate
of defendant No.1 disclosing the names of its Trustees. The plaint reveals
that all the Trustees who are alive are made defendants in this suit. On
this count the Interveners are neither necessary nor proper parties as
they are not the trustees as per record available before this Court.
8. So far as the ground for their impleadment on the basis of they
being party to Suit No.809 of 1986, the documents annexed with the
plaint reveal that the decree in Suit No.809 of 1986 is set aside and the
suit was dismissed by the Division Bench of Small Causes Court. Writ
Petition against the said dismissal was unsuccessful. Thus the interveners
cannot seek their impleadment as defendants in present suit on the
ground of alleged declaration of their status as tenants. As their such
status as tenant is now legally nonexistent. Therefore, the Chamber
Summons fails even on this count. The proceeding indicates that the trial
in this case has already begun. The manner in which this Chamber
Summons is taken out reflects casual attitude of Interveners as the
-- 3 of 5 --
4 CHS 21119 IN S.C. SU 33414
defendants in the suit are also shown as Interveners and the Chamber
Summons is also taken out on behalf of people who are no more. Thus
there is every room to consider that this proceeding is taken out only to
halt proceeding of this suit. Therefore, in such circumstances, mere
dismissal of Chamber Summons will not sufice the purpose but the
Chamber Summons needs to be dismissed with costs. Hence, the order:
ORDER
1. Chamber Summons No.211 of 2019 is dismissed with costs.
Sd/
(A.N. MARE)
Judge,
02/04/2019 City Civil Court, Mumbai.
Dictated On : 02.04.2019
Transcribed on : 02.04.2019
HHJ Signed on : 03.04.2019
-- 4 of 5 --
5 CHS 21119 IN S.C. SU 33414
“CERTIFIED TO BE TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF
THE ORIGINAL SIGNED JUDGMENT/ORDER.”
Upload Date Upload Time Name of Stenographer
03.04.2019 02.50 p.m. V.U. Pawar (H.G.)
Name of the Judge (With Court
Room No.)
HHJ SHRI A.N. MARE
(CR 09)
Date of Pronouncement of
JUDGEMENT /ORDER
02.04.2019
JUDGEMENT /ORDER signed by
P.O. on
03.04.2019
JUDGEMENT /ORDER uploaded
on
03.04.2019
-- 5 of 5 --