Order 1

Order Details: Chamber summons
Pdf Text: 1
IN THE BOMBAY CITY CIVIL COURT AT MUMBAI
CHAMBER SUMMONS NO. 766 OF 2018
(CNR NO. MH CC01-005303-2018)
IN
S.C.SUIT NO. 447 OF 2017
1. Vasant Mahadeo Bhosale and ]
others. ].. Plaintiffs.
V/s.
1. Smt. Vanita Krishna Bhosale and ]
others. ]..Defendants
And
The Maharashtra Housing & Area ]
Development Authority (MHADA). ].Proposed
Defendant No.6.
Advocate Mr. B.A. Powar for plaintiff.
Advocate Mr. Redekar for defendant No.1.
Advocate Mr. Kundalkar for defendant Nos.2 to 5.
Advocate Ms. Mangal Kadam for defendant No.6.
CORAM : HIS HONOUR JUDGE
MR. SITARAM N. PATIL
(C.R.NO.09)
DATE : 20th DECEMBER 2022
ORAL ORDER
This Chamber Summons has been taken out by the
plaintiffs for adding party to MHADA as party defendant No.6 due to
MHADA has been taken B.D.D. Chawls of N.M. Joshi Marg, Mumbai-
400013 alongwith suit for redevelopment and also taken steps to survey
to prepare List of Annexture-II of the tenants/occupants and after
redevelopment MHADA will have provide permanent new premises in
-- 1 of 6 --
2
lieu of the suit premises and carrying out amendments in the plaint and
Notice of Motion as per Schedule annexed to the Chamber Summons.
2. The plaintiffs have filed affidavit in support of Chamber
Summons, wherein it is stated the plaintiffs have filed suit for
declaration and injunction against defendants and sought reliefs as
prayed in the suit in respect of the suit property viz. Room No.67,
B.D.D. Chawl No.12, N.M. Joshi Marg, Mumbai 400 013 (hereinafter
referred as the suit premises for the sake of convenience).
3. It is further contended that the MHADA will have taken
said B.D.D. Chawl for redevelopment project. If the Chamber Summons
is allowed then there is no prejudice will be caused to the defendants
and will not change of cause of action or nature of the suit. Hence,
prayed for allowing Chamber Summons.
4. The defendant No.1 has filed reply to the Chamber
Summons and denied the averments made in the Affidavit and the
plaint. The plaintiffs wants to change the entire nature of te suit as well
as the reliefs claimed in the suit which is not permissible under the law.
The MHADA has not doing any redevelopment process at the suit
property site. The BDD Chal Authority has not appointed MHADA for
redevelopment. The plaintiffs are very well aware that defendant No.1
is tenant of the suit premises. The plaintiffs have not produced any
documentary evidence in support of case. In the circumstances, it is
prayed for rejection of Chamber Summons.
5. The MHADA /proposed defendant No.6 has filed reply and
strongly objected and denied the averments made in the Affidavit. It is
-- 2 of 6 --
3
contended that Chamber Summons is false and frivolous. The
amendment sought for by the plaintiffs are not clear. The MHADA has
not taken the project of BDD Chawl for redevelopment. Hence, prayed
for dismissal of the Chamber Summon.
6. Heard the learned advocate for the plaintiffs and the
learned advocates for defendants at length.
7. Perused plaint, Affidavit in support of Chamber Summons,
reply. The plaintiffs want to add MHADA as party defendant No.6 and
submitted that the redevelopment and List of Annexture-II of the
tenants/occupants is to be prepared by MHADA regarding. But except
bear words of the plaintiffs, no documentary evidence on record to
show that the proposed defendant No.6 MHADA is going to redevelop
the suit property. Therefore, it appears that the reason mentioned by
the plaintiffs to add MHADA as party is not just and proper. As per the
relief claimed by the plaintiffs in his plaint that they want to declare
that the suit premises illegally transfer from the name of deceased
Mahadeo Pandurang Bhosale to the name of defendant No.1 by
defendant No.3 on 09.02.2015 and also seeking declaration that the
false and fabricated documents prepared by the defendant No.1 with
the help of defendant Nos.3 to 5. They further prayed that to revoke,
quash and set aside the Transfer Order passed by defendant Nos.3 to 5
in favour of defendant No.1 also seeks declaration that the defendant
No.1 has no right, title and interest in respect of suit premises and
further relief of injunction against the defendants. It appears that the
plaintiffs have not claimed any relief against the proposed defendant
No.6/MHADA.
-- 3 of 6 --
4
8. As per Order-I Rule 10(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure
speaks that;
“Court may strike out or add parties- The Court may at
any stage of the proceedings, either upon or without the
application of either party and on such terms as may
appear to the Court to be just, order that the name of
any party improperly joined, whether as plaintiff or
defendant, be struck out and that the name of any
person who ought to have been joined, whether as
plaintiff or defendant. Or whose presence before the
Court may be necessary in order to enable the Court
effectually and completely to adjudicate upon and settle
all the questions involved in the suit, be added.
9. In the present matter no relief claimed by the plaintiffs
against the proposed defendant No.6. Therefore, the involvement of
defendant No.6 is not necessary to decide the controversy between the
plaintiffs and defendant No.1. Perusing record, it appears that there
dispute in between the plaintiffs and defendant No.1 who are legal heirs
of Mahadeo Pandurang Bhosale. Therefore, it is not necessary to add
the defendant No.6 as party in this matter.
10. In a law suit, a necessary party is a person or persons
whose interests are affected directly by the outcome of the case. A
necessary party must be join unless there is valid reason excluding
them. A necessary party is one without whom no order can be made
effectively and whose presence is necessary for complete on final
decision on the question involved in the present proceeding. In the
present matter, the plaintiffs have not claimed any relief against the
-- 4 of 6 --
5
proposed defendant No.6. Therefore, it appears that the proposed
defendant No.6 MHADA is not proper party or necessary party. The
property owned by the State Government. If as per the claim of the
plaintiff, the proposed defendant No.6 is added in this suit, it will be
unnecessarily drag the defendant No.6 in the proceeding. Therefore, it
appears that the proposed defendant No.6 is not a necessary party or
proper party. Therefore, the present Chamber Summons deserves to be
dismissed. With this, I proceed to pass the following order:
ORDER
1. Chamber Summons No. 766 of 2018 is dismissed
with costs.
2 Chamber Summons No. 766 of 2018 stands disposed
of accordingly.
(SITARAM N. PATIL)
Judge,
City Civil Court,
Date: 20/12/2022 Gr. Bombay.
Dictated on : 20/12/2022
Transcribed on : 20/12/2022
Signed on : 20/12/2022
-- 5 of 6 --
6
CERTIFIED TO BE TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF THE ORIGINAL
SIGNED JUDGMENT/ORDER.”
23/12/2022 At 1.30 p.m. MRS. SUPRIYA S.PAWAR
UPLOAD DATE AND TIME NAME OF STENOGRAPHER
Name of the Judge (With Court Room
Number)
HHJ MR. SITARAM N. PATIL
(C.R.NO.09)
Date of pronouncement of Judgment/
Order
20/12/2022
Judgment/Order signed by P.O. on 20/12/2022
Judgment/Order uploaded on 23/12/2022
-- 6 of 6 --