Final Order 1

Order Details: Chamber summons
Pdf Text: 1 Ch/S.NO.732/2018
MHCC010049482018
IN THE BOMBAY CITY CIVIL COURT AT MUMBAI.
CHAMBER SUMMONS NO. 732 OF 2018
IN
S.C. SUIT NO. 1493 OF 2016
Nilesh N. Bhayani ...Applicant
IN THE MATTER BETWEEN
Mrs. Leena Manoj Mehta ...Plaintiff
V/s.
Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd and Ors. ...Defendants.
Appearances :
Mr. Giriraj, Learned advocate for the applicant.
Samiksha Malekar instructed by Mr.Abhiraj Parab, Learned advocate for
plaintiff.
CORAM : HHJ Rajesh A. Sasne
(C.R.NO.62)
Date : 19th APRIL, 2023
O R D E R
1. This chamber summons is taken out by the intervenor
applicants requesting to direct the plaintiff to implead him as party
defendant to the suit. The chamber summons is opposed by the Plaintiff
by filing reply. The intervenor filed rejoinder to the reply.
2. Heard the Learned Advocate for the intervenor applicant
-- 1 of 5 --
2 Ch/S.NO.732/2018
and the learned advocate for the plaintiff. Read the affidavit in support
of the chamber summons, affidavit in reply and affidavit of rejoinder.
3. It is the contention of the intervenor that he is running a
gas agency. LPG distributorship is allotted to his firm by defendant
No.1. The defendant has withdrawn the letter of intent of the plaintiff
on the basis of complaint. Series of correspondences are addressed by
the intervenor to the defendant pointing out several misrepresentations
and frauds committed by the plaintiff in obtaining said LOI from the
defendants. It is further contention of the intervenor that he is aware
about said misrepresentation, frauds and malpractices committed by the
plaintiff. It is his contention that he is desirous to assist the defendants
in defending the suit. The plaintiff is his sister. Entire dealings with the
defendants have been conducted by the intervenor's brother who is also
his partner in intervenor's business of L. P. G distributorship. LOI has
been withdrawn upon the intervenor’s complainant. According to him
plaintiff ought to have made him party to the suit. With these
contentions, the intervenor prayed to implead him as party defendant.
4. It is the contention of the plaintiff that by letter dated 26
December 2014, letter of intent has been withdrawn by the defendant
due to the complainant of the intervenor. The intervenor has no role in
the present suit. The presence of the intervenor is not necessary for
adjudication of the suit. The intervenor is not the affected party or
beneficiary of this litigation.
5. After going through the contentions of the intervenor and
the plaintiff, it is noticed that the sole intention of the intervenor to join
-- 2 of 5 --
3 Ch/S.NO.732/2018
him as a defendant to the suit is to assist the defendant to defend the
suit. It is not the object of the provision of Order I Rule 10 of the code
of civil procedure to join any party to the suit on such intention of the
party. It is the contention of the intervenor that on the basis of his
complaints LOI has been withdrawn by the defendant. He has
knowledge about the misrepresentation and fraud committed by the
Plaintiff. On these grounds he requested to implead him as a party
defendant. Considering his contentions at the most he can be a witness
for the defendant and not the party to the suit. The learned advocate for
the plaintiff has relied on the judgment in Ravi Yashwant Bhoir vs.
District collector, Riker and ors.( MANU/SC/0186 /2012). Wherein it
is held that expresident was the complainant, thus, at the most, he
could lead the evidence as a witness. He could not claim the status of an
adversial litigant. A person who suffers from legal injury can only
challenge the act or omission. A person cannot be heard as a party
unless he answers the description of aggrieved party. In case before me,
the intervenor is not the aggrieved party. There is no legal injury caused
to him. By decision of suit no issue affecting his rights are going to be
decided. Therefore, he is not the necessary party to the suit.
6. The plaintiff further relied on the judgment in Rameshwar
Hirachand Kundanmal versus Municipal Corporation of Greater
Bombay and others, MANU/SC/0493/1992. Wherein it is held that
necessary parties is one without whom no order can be made
effectively, proper party is one in whose absence effective order can be
made but whose presence is necessary for complete and final decision
on question involved in proceeding. In case before me the presence of
intervener is not necessary for final adjudication of the suit. In his
-- 3 of 5 --
4 Ch/S.NO.732/2018
absence order can be made effectively. Therefore, his presence is not
necessary in the suit. The intervenor cannot compel the defendant to
take his assistance for its defence. At the most the defendant may invite
the intervenor as witness for the defendant. Therefore, the person who
can be a witness whose no rights are infringed, cannot be a party to the
suit. Considering all these circumstances, I am of the view that the
presence of intervenor is not necessary for complete and final
adjudication of the dispute involved in the suit. Hence, chamber
summons is required to be dismissed. In the result I pass the following
order :
O R D E R
1. The Chamber Summons No. 732 of 2018 is dismissed.
2. The costs shall follow the event.
(Shri. Rajesh A. Sasne)
Date : 19/04/2023 Judge,
Direct Dictated on : 19/04/2023 City Civil Court,
Typed on : 19/04/2023 Mumbai.
Checked on : 20/04/2023
Signed on : 21/04/2023
-- 4 of 5 --
5 Ch/S.NO.732/2018
CERTIFIED TO BE TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF THE ORIGINAL SIGNED
JUDGMENT/ORDER”
21/04/2023 at 12.40 p.m. Mr. Mohit M. Patange
UPLOAD DATE AND TIME NAME OF STENOGRAPHER (LG)
Name of the Judge(with CR No.) HHJ SHRI. R.A. SASNE (C.R.No.62)
Date of pronouncement of Order 19/04/2023
Order signed by P.O. on 21/04/2023
Order uploaded on 21/04/2023
-- 5 of 5 --