Final Order 1

Order Details: Chamber summons
Pdf Text: 1 (Ch/s No. 540.2020 in SU 2436/19)
IN THE BOMBAY CITY CIVIL COURT AT MUMBAI
CHAMBER SUMMONS NO. 540 OF 2020
IN
L. C. SUIT NO. 2436 of 2019
1. Shaikh Abdulla Ibrahim Shaikh and ors. Plaintiffs
V/s
1. The Municipal Corporation of
greater Bombay, (MCGM) and Ors. Defendants
CORAM : HIS HONOUR JUDGE
S.R. SALUNKHE.
(C.R. No. 12)
DATE : 11th November, 2020
Appearance:
Mr. Holmagi , advocate for the plaintiff.
Mr.Mansi Chikode with P. J. Ramchandani, advocate for the defendant
No.4
Mr.Chandramore for the defendant No.1/BMC .
ORAL ORDER
1. The plaintiff has taken out this Chamber Summons for
having five parties as the defendants to this suit. The affidavit in
support does not disclosed the ground as to why they are sought to be
impleaded as the defendants nor there is statement as to how, they
become necessary party to the suit.
-- 1 of 6 --
2 (Ch/s No. 540.2020 in SU 2436/19)
2. The proposed respondent No. 4 and 5 are already made
party to the suit as defendant No. 2 and 4. Other three parties are the
hotel AL-SAFA, wherein the plaintiffs reside temporarily at the cost of
the defendant No. 4. The police inspector of the Dongari police station
and Paydhuni police station are two other parties sought to be
impleaded as the defendants.
3. The Ld. Advocate for the plaintiff submits that the
respondents, in collusion with each other are trying to disposses the
plaintiff from the hotel in which their residing and therefore, they are
sought to be impleaded as the defendants.
4. The Chamber Summons is contested by the defendant No.
4 by filing reply contending that the defendant No. 4 is developing the
property under the scheme implemented through MHADA. The
provision for alternate permanent accommodation is made for the
plaintiffs. The defendant No. 4 had offered the transit rent at the rate of
Rs.10000/- per month for residential premises and Rs.11000/- for
commercial premises and has requested the plaintiff to execute an
agreement for permanent alternate accommodation, but the plaintiffs
are refusing to execute the same. On 08.04.2019, MHADA visited the
premises and the plaintiffs have willingly vacated the premises. Pending
the issue of the transit accommodation of the plaintiffs the defendant
No. 4 had made temporarily arrangement of the plaintiffs’ residence for
seven days in hotel “AL-SAFA” till the arrangement is made for residence
of the plaintiff in transit camp accommodation by MHADA. The
defendant No. 4 is paying hotel charges of Rs.2500/-per day. The
plaintiff are taking undue advantage of this situation and trying to avoid
-- 2 of 6 --
3 (Ch/s No. 540.2020 in SU 2436/19)
to shift to the transit accommodation and to enjoy their residence in
hotel. The proposed respondent are neither necessary nor proper
parties. Therefore, they prayed that this Chamber Summons be
dismissed. The Ld. Advocate for the defendant No. 4 has made
submissions in consonance with the above circumstances and other
situations pertaining to the suit premises in details and has produced
the copies of the relevant documents. Considering the scope of this
chamber summons, it is not necessary to go into the details of those
contentions.
5. Having heard the Ld. Advocate for both the parties, it is
admitted by the Advocate for the plaintiff that the respondent No. 4 and
5 are already defendants in the suit and it is the mistake of the plaintiff
to seek them again to be impleaded as the defendants. In so far as the
respondent No. 1 hotel “AL-SAFA” is concerned, admittedly the plaintiffs
are residing in that hotel at the costs of the defendant No. 4. The
respondent No. 2 and 3 i.e the Inspector of police of Dongari Police
Station and Pydhunie Police Station are sought to be impleaded on
allegation that they are threatening the plaintiffs at the instance of the
defendant No. 4.
6. It shall be noted that a necessary party is a party in absence
of whom no effective decree can be passed in the suit. Normally the
persons are may parties to the suit who are answerable to the suit
claim. Admittedly the proposed respondent Nos. 1 to 3 have no interest
either in the suit premises or any dispute with the plaintiffs regarding
their rights in the suit premises. The respondent No. 1 will allow the
plaintiffs to reside in its hotel so far the charges are paid by the
defendant No. 4. Likewise, police are bound to take cognizance of
-- 3 of 6 --
4 (Ch/s No. 540.2020 in SU 2436/19)
complaint made to them and to take action in accordance with law. If
they are not taking the same in accordance with law, the plaintiffs
would have other remedies to invoke against them. Therefore, these
proposed parties are neither necessary nor proper parties to the suit.
Thus, they cannot be allowed to be impleaded as the defendants. The
Chamber Summons is devoid of merits and is liable to be dismissed.
7. The manner in which the chamber summons is drafted and
filed, it reflects very casual approach of the plaintiffs in doing so. The
plaintiffs are the best person to know who are the defendants in the
suit. Still they have try to implead two defendants in the array of the
parties who are already arrayed. Other three parties are sought to be
impleaded knowing fully well that they have no concern with the
subject matter of the suit nor they have any grievance about the claim
of the plaintiff. It appears that they are tried to be impleaded to
pressurize them. This attempt on the part of the plaintiffs would
amount to abuse of the process of the Court which resulted in wasting
the limited time available for the Court to deal with extreme urgent
matters in this Covid-19 Pendamic. The plaintiff has got this matter
preponed showing urgency, but on merit, it appears that there was no
such urgency in the matter. I therefore of the considered view to award
reasonable costs to be created to the Government. Hence, the order.
O R D E R
1. The Chamber Summons No. 540 of 2020 is dismissed with cost of
Rs.10,000/- which shall be deposited in the Court within a week
(excluding Diwali Holiday) from the date of this order.
-- 4 of 6 --
5 (Ch/s No. 540.2020 in SU 2436/19)
2. The costs so deposited by the plaintiffs shall be credited to the
Government.
3. The payment of cost shall be a condition precedent for further
proceeding in the suit.
4. The Chamber Summons No. 540 of 2020 stands disposed of
accordingly.
(SHIVAJI. R. SALUNKHE)
Judge
City Civil Court,
Date: 11/11/2020. Gr. Bombay.
Dictated on : 11/11/2020
Transcribed on : 11/11/2020
Signed on : 11/11/2020.
-- 5 of 6 --
6 (Ch/s No. 540.2020 in SU 2436/19)
CERTIFIED TO BE TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF THE ORIGINAL
SIGNED JUDGMENT/ORDER.”
11/11/2020 At 12.20 p.m. MRS. SUPRIYA S. PAWAR
UPLOAD DATE AND TIME NAME OF STENOGRAPHER
Name of the Judge (With Court
Room No.)
HHJ MR. S. R. SALUNKHE
(C.R.NO.12)
Date of pronouncement of
Judgment/Order
11/11/2020
Judgment/Order signed by P.O. on 11/11/2020
Judgment/Order uploaded on 11/11/2020
-- 6 of 6 --