Order 1

Order Details: Chamber summons
Pdf Text: 1 Ch/S.607/2018
IN THE BOMBAY CITY CIVIL COURT AT MUMBAI
Chamber Summons No. 607 of 2018
In
L.C. Suit No. 150 of 2018
Ajay Kumar Hariram Maroo ...Plaintiffs/
& Ors. Applicants
V/s.
State of Maharashtra & Ors. ...Defendants.
And
Sukanlal Dave & Ors. ...Respondents.
Appearances: Ld.Adv. Mr. Satamkar for the plaintiff.
Ld.Adv. Mr. Neha Pandey for applicant
Coram : D.K. Gudadhe, Adhoc Judge.
(C.R.No. 12)
Dated: 17th October, 2018
Order
1. This Chamber Summons is taken out by the plaintiff to
add other persons as a coplaintiff. The facts of the plaintiff's case in
short are as under.
2. According to the plaintiff, he along with some defendants
are owner of the suit property. In this suit property there some
tenants. Now, the tenants and the plaintiffs agreed to develop a suit
property. However, the builder in collusion with MHADA authorities
and some few tenants even acquired the suit property as per the
provisions of Sec. 91A of MHADA Act. Therefore, the plaintiff has
filed the suit for declaration that such acquisition is invalid, badinlaw
-- 1 of 4 --
2 Ch/S.607/2018
and other consequential relief. Now, the respondent which the
plaintiffs want to joint as a partyplaintiffs are the tenants and
supporting the plaintiffs and therefore, they be added as a party to the
proceeding. Hence, this chamber summons.
3. Defendant No. 3 opposed the application on a ground that
there is no substance in it. In addition to this, they have also pointed
out how the plaintiff's main case is without any substance.
4. On these rival contentions of the parties, the points that
arise for determination are as follows. I have given my findings thereon
for the reasons mentioned in the subsequent paras.
Sr.No. POINTS FINDINGS
1. Whether the impleadings of the
respondents as a partyplaintiffs is
necessary in order to enable the court
effectively and completely adjudicate
upon and settle all question involve in the
suit ?
No.
2. What order? As per final order.
Reasons:
As to Point No.1:
5. From the contents of the parties, it clearly seen that the
plaintiffs claim to be owner of the suit property and wanted to develop
it with consent of the tenants. However, at the same time, it is seen
that the suit property is already came to be acquired by MHADA. Of
-- 2 of 4 --
3 Ch/S.607/2018
course, the plaintiff disputed this acquisition and for this main purpose
only suit is filed. But, it is pertinent to note here that, the proposed
respondents are the tenants and therefore, without their consent the
plaintiff cannot add them as a party plaintiffs. The plaintiffs may add
them as a party defendants without their consent. Furthermore,
considering the plaintiffs relief in the entirety, I do not think that the
presence of the respondents are necessary for deciding the real
controversy between the parties. In view of this, I have no hesitation at
all to hold that to answer this point in negative. Accordingly, I answer
this point.
As to Point No. 2 :
6. In view of my findings to the above point and reasons for
the same, I hold that Chamber Summons deserves to be rejected.
Accordingly, I answer to this point and proceed to pass order in
following terms:
Order
1. Notice of Motion is hereby rejected.
2. Accordingly, Notice of Motion is disposed of.
(D.K. Gudadhe)
Adhoc Judge,
17.10.2018 City Civil Court, Gr. Bombay.
Dictated on : 17.10.2018
Transcribed on : 19.10.2018
Signed on : 22.10.2018
-- 3 of 4 --
4 Ch/S.607/2018
“CERTIFIED TO BE TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF THE ORIGINAL
SIGNED JUDGMENT/ORDER”
UPLOAD DATE & TIME : 22.10.2018 5.25 P.M.
NAME OF STENOGRAPHER : S.S.BATHE
Name of Judge (with Court Room No.) Shri D.K. Gudadhe
(C.R.No.12)
Date of Pronouncement of
JUDGMENT /ORDER
17.10.2018
JUDGMENT /ORDER signed by P.O. on 22.10.2018
JUDGMENT /ORDER uploaded on 22.10.2018
-- 4 of 4 --