Skip to main content
Court Order

Final Order 1

CNR MHCC01004706201824 Jul 2018
City Civil Court, Mumbai
Mumbai · Maharashtra (MH)
Back to Case

Full Order Text

Final Order 1 · 24 Jul 2018 · CNR MHCC010047062018

Order Details: Chamber summons
Pdf Text: CS 69318 in L.C. SU 228111 : 1 : Dt. 24.07.2018
IN THE BOMBAY CITY CIVIL COURT AT BOMBAY
CHAMBER SUMMONS NO. 693 OF 2018
(CNR NO. MHCC010047062018)
IN
LONG CAUSE SUIT NO. 2281 OF 2011
(CNR NO. MHCC010028532011)
St. Pius XCooperative Housing Society Ltd. ...Plaintiff
Versus
Municipal Corporation Of Greater Mumbai ...Defendant
And
Shanti Campus Cooperative Housing Society Ltd. ...Proposed
Deft. No. 2
CORAM : HER HONOUR JUDGE
SMT. SANJASHREE J. GHARAT
(C.R. NO.08)
DATE : 24.07.2018.
Adv. Mr. A.P. Steenson for Plaintiff.
Adv. Mrs. Kamble for Defendant / BMC.
ORAL ORDER
The present Chamber Summons is filed by the
Plaintiff to implead Shanti Campus Cooperative Housing
Society Ltd. as party to the present proceedings.
2. It is submitted by the Plaintiff that Shanti
Campus Cooperative Housing Society Ltd. is sharing common
wall and Plaintiff Society is facing issue of water logging.
Therefore, the Proposed Defendant is necessary for just
decision of the case. Hence, Plaintiff prayed that Proposed
Defendant be added as Defendant No. 2 in the matter.
-- 1 of 3 --
CS 69318 in L.C. SU 228111 : 2 : Dt. 24.07.2018
3. The Defendant / Corporation filed Say and
resisted application.
4. Heard learned Counsel appearing on behalf of
both parties.
5. The present Chamber Summons is taken out by
the Plaintiff to add Proposed Defendant as Defendant No. 2 to
the present proceeding. The Plaintiff claims that the dispute in
the present matter pertains to common wall between Plaintiff
Society and Proposed Defendant No. 2. It is further
contention that there is problem of water logging. Therefore
Plaintiff claims that Proposed Defendant is necessary party.
6. The Plaintiff is the dominus litus of his case.
Plaintiff claims that the Proposed Defendant is necessary for
the just decision of the case. The Proposed Defendant is the
proper party to the present proceedings. Hence, the prayer
made by the Plaintiff for adding Proposed Defendant as
Defendant no. 2 needs to be allowed. Therefore, I proceed to
pass following Order :
ORDER
1. The Chamber Summons No. 693 of 2018
is allowed and made absolute in terms of prayer
clause (a).
2. Plaintiff is directed to carry out
amendment within Fourteen (14) days from the
date of this order and to furnish copy of the
-- 2 of 3 --
CS 69318 in L.C. SU 228111 : 3 : Dt. 24.07.2018
amended Plaint on record.
(SANJASHREE J. GHARAT )
Judge
City Civil Court
Gr. Mumbai.
Date : 24.07.2018
Dictated on : 24.07.2018.
Transcribed on : 25.07.2018.
Signed on : 26.07.2018.
“CERTIFIED TO BE TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF THE ORIGINAL SIGNED
JUDGMENT/ORDER.”
26.07.2018 at 5.40 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
24.07.2018
JUDGMENT/ORDER signed by P.O.
on
26.07.2018
JUDGMENT/ORDER uploaded on 26.07.2018
-- 3 of 3 --

TrustJury presents public court-record information for legal discovery and reference. Record availability and detail can vary by source and case.