Final Order 1

Order Details: Chamber summons
Pdf Text: 1 Ch.S.no. 750-18 in L.C.Suit no.421-18
CNR MHCC O1-005079-2018
IN THE CITY CIVIL COURT FOR GREATER BOMBAY
AT BOMBAY.
CHAMBER SUMMONS NO.750 OF 2018
IN
L.C. SUIT NO.421 OF 2018
Rajesh Prabhulal Premani ]...Applicant
In the matter of
Yasmin Aspi Irani ]....Plaintiff
Versus
1.The Municipal Corporation of ]
Greater Mumbai and Others. ]... Defendants.
Coram : M.S. Deshpande, Judge
(Court Room no. 05)
Date : July 17th, 2018.
Ms.Rashmi Arabekar, advocate for plaintiff.
Mr. Dhumale, advocate for defendants.
Mr.Pratik Pareja,advocate for intervenor/applicant
ORDER
1. The applicant by this chamber summons seeking
impleadment as defendant in the suit by submitting that the plaintiff by
keeping the cylinders has block his excess to light and air and further
caused inconvenience. It is also contended that the applicant is having
material documents which will throw light on the material in dispute
and would be necessary for the sound disposal of the suit. Lastly, it is
-- 1 of 4 --
2 Ch.S.no. 750-18 in L.C.Suit no.421-18
contended that in the plaint certain allegations are made against the
applicant and therefore, his presence is necessary in order to reply those
allegations.
2. Heard respective advocates. Learned advocate for the
applicant made submissions in consonance with the aforesaid
contentions. On the other hand learned advocate for the plaintiff
submits that the scope of the suit is limited to the legality of the notice
issued u/s. 351 of the MMC Act. In addition to that he submits that the
nature of the documents is not explained by the applicant and further
the applicant may adopt necessary action for production of his right. In
reply learned advocate for the applicant submitted that his presence is
necessary and he will produce material documents at the relevant stage.
3. So far as submissions relating to infringement of right to
light , air and other inconvenience being caused by the LPG cylinders
keeping by the plaintiff near the premises of the applicant, the applicant
may initiate an independent action by adopting an action permissible
under the law. So far as the documents which the applicant wishes to
produce to resolve the matter in dispute, the applicant would be
competent witness for defendant and for that purpose his presence as
party defendant is not necessary. So far as the allegations made against
the applicant etc. in the plaint are concerned, it appears from the
averments made in the plaint that the plaintiff has stated that the action
u/s. 351 of the MMC Act has been initiated at the instance of the
applicant. Other serious and scandalous allegations are not made in the
plaint. The plaintiff has not claimed any relief against the applicant in
the plaint and therefore, in view of ratio laid down by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the case of Ramesh vs. MCGM reported in (1992) 2
-- 2 of 4 --
3 Ch.S.no. 750-18 in L.C.Suit no.421-18
SCC 524. The presence of applicant is not necessary for determination
of matter in dispute and effective decree can be passed in this suit in his
absence. Therefore, following order is passed.
ORDER
1. Chamber Summons No.750 of 2018 is dismissed.
2. Parties to bear their own costs of the chamber summons.
(M.S. Deshpande)
Ad. Hoc.Judge,
City Civil Court, Mumbai.
Dictated on : 17/07/2018.
Transcribed on : 18/07/2018.
Signed by HHJ on : 18/07/2018.
-- 3 of 4 --
4 Ch.S.no. 750-18 in L.C.Suit no.421-18
“CERTIFIED TO BE TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF THE ORIGINAL
SIGNED JUDGMENT/ORDER.”
UPLOAD DATE AND TIME : 18/07/2018 at 4.00 p.m.
NAME OF STENOGRAPHER : Mr. M.P. Tathe
Name of the Judge (With Court
Room no.)
HHJ Shri. M. S. Deshpande
C.R. no.05
Date of Pronouncement of
JUDGMENT/ORDER
17.07.2018
JUDGMENT/ORDER signed by
P.O. on
18.07.2018
JUDGMENT/ORDER uploaded
on
18.07.2018
-- 4 of 4 --