Order 1

Order Details: Chamber summons
Pdf Text: CS 58818 in L.C. SU 60618 : 1 : Dt. 05.07.2018
IN THE BOMBAY CITY CIVIL COURT AT BOMBAY
CHAMBER SUMMONS NO. 588 OF 2018
(CNR NO. MHCC010040592018)
IN
LONG CAUSE SUIT NO. 606 OF 2018
(CNR NO. MHCC010028772018)
Janardhan Shantaram More ...Plaintiff
Versus
1. The Municipal Corporation Of
Greater Mumbai
2. Designated Officer 1,
Assistant Engineer (B & F),
M West Ward, Chembur ...Defendants
And
Smt. Tunga Krishna Devadiga ...Applicant
CORAM : HER HONOUR JUDGE
SMT. SANJASHREE J. GHARAT
(C.R. NO.08)
DATE : 05.07.2018.
Adv. Mr. Redekar for Plaintiff.
Adv. Ms. Tadvi for Defendant no. 1 / BMC.
Adv. Mr. Gharat for Applicant.
ORAL ORDER
The present Chamber Summons is taken out by the
Applicant to implead her as a party to the present suit. She submitted
that she is owner of the suit structure. The plaintiff is tenant in the suit
premises. Being owner she is having right, title, interest in the suit
structure. Therefore she prayed to add her as a party to the present
proceedings.
2. The Plaintiff filed Say and resisted the application.
3. It is submitted that Plaintiff is dominus litus of his own
-- 1 of 4 --
CS 58818 in L.C. SU 60618 : 2 : Dt. 05.07.2018
cause. Therefore, it is the plaintiff who should decide as to whom he
should join as party defendant.
4. It is further submitted by the Plaintiff that applicant not
produced any documentary evidence. Such as Conveyance Deed, Index
II to prove the ownership. It is submitted that plaintiff is challenging
the action of MCGM. Therefore applicant is neither necessary nor
proper party to the present suit. Therefore Plaintiff prayed to reject the
application filed by the Applicant.
5. Heard learned Counsel appearing on behalf of both the
parties.
6. I have gone through the pleadings made by the Plaintiff.
The Plaintiff not specifically pleaded in which capacity he is occupying
the suit premises. However in Para 7 of the Plaint there is reference
about the issuance of the Notice by the landlord.
7 In Para 11 the Plaintiff produced copy of Notice alleged to
be issued by the landlord alongwith compilation at Page No. 29. The
said notice is issued by the applicant to whom plaintiff addressed as a
landlord in Para 7 of the Plaint. Therefore applicant adduced evidence
in respect of he is landlord of the suit structure. She claims being owner
of the suit property, she is having right, title and interest in the suit
structure. Therefore no prejudice will be caused to the plaintiff, if the
Applicant is permitted to be added as a defendant no. 2.
8. The learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the plaintiff
placed reliance on observations made by Hon'ble Apex Court in case of
Mohamed Hussain Gulam Ali Shariffi Versus Municipal Corporation
-- 2 of 4 --
CS 58818 in L.C. SU 60618 : 3 : Dt. 05.07.2018
of Greater Bombay & Ors. 2017 (6) ALL MR 420 (S.C.). In the cited
case the applicants were claiming to have purchased the suit property
from plaintiff. Therefore the Hon'ble Apex Court observed that right
between the plaintiff and applicant regarding suit property can be
decided in separate suit. However in the present case in hand the
Notice is issued for alleged unauthorised construction and if the owner
of the property is not permitted to make representation then any order
passed in respect of suit structure will directly affect the right of the
applicant which she is claiming in the suit structure. The plaintiff
further placed reliance on the observations made by Hon'ble Bombay
High Court in Chouhan Builders India Housing Development Pvt. Ltd.
versus BMC & Anr. in Writ Petition No. 4265 of 2014. In Para 7 of
the said judgment it is observed by the Hon'ble Bombay High Court that
merely because the action initiated against plaintiff on basis of
Complaint filed by the Applicant he is not necessary party to the suit.
However with great respect I want to submit that facts of the cited case
and facts of the present case in hand are different. The Applicant is not
necessary party to the proceedings but in my view she is proper party.
She is the person who is holding documents to show authorisation of
structure. Therefore the Chamber Summons filed by the Applicant
needs to be allowed. Hence I proceed to pass following order :
ORDER
1. The Chamber Summons No. 588 of 2018 is hereby allowed.
2. The Applicant / Intervener be added as a defendant no. 2.
(SANJASHREE J. GHARAT )
Judge
Date : 05.07.2018. City Civil Court,
Dictated on : 05.07.2018. Gr. Mumbai.
-- 3 of 4 --
CS 58818 in L.C. SU 60618 : 4 : Dt. 05.07.2018
Transcribed on : 11.07.2018.
Signed on : 16.07.2018.
“CERTIFIED TO BE TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF THE ORIGINAL SIGNED
JUDGMENT/ORDER.”
16.07.2018 at 3.10 p.m. (Y.M. SAKHARKAR)
UPLOAD DATE AND TIME NAME OF STENOGRAPHER
Name of the Judge (With Court
room no.)
SMT. SANJASHREE J. GHARAT
(C.R. NO.08)
Date of Pronouncement of
JUDGMENT/ ORDER
05.07.2018
JUDGMENT/ORDER signed by P.O.
on
16.07.2018
JUDGMENT/ORDER uploaded on 16.07.2018
-- 4 of 4 --