Order 1

Order Details: Chamber summons
Pdf Text: 1 Ch/sum No.765-2018 in
Suit No.1410-2015
MHCC010053042018
IN THE BOMBAY CITY CIVIL COURT FOR GREATER BOMBAY
CHAMBER SUMMONS NO.765 OF 2018
IN
SUIT NO.1410 OF 2015
1. Smt. Shalini Atmaram Gaikwad ]
Age: 60 years, residing at B.E.S.T., ]
Staff Quarters, A/40, Bajaj Road, Kandivali ]
(West), Mumbai- 400 067. ]
having permanent address Room No.29, ]
B. D. D. Chawl No.99, Worli, Mumbai-18 ]
2. Shri. Vinay Atmaram Gaikwad ]
Age: 40 years, residing at B.E.S.T., ]
Staff Quarters, A/40, Bajaj Road, Kandivali ]
(West), Mumbai- 400 067. ]
having permanent address Room No.29, ]
B. D. D. Chawl No.99, Worli, Mumbai-18 ] … Plaintiff.
Versus
1. Shri. Ananda Tanaji Gaikwad ]
Age: 47 years, Occu: Agricultural ]
Residing at Post Tulsan, Taluka Karad, ]
Dist. Satara. ]
2. The State of Maharashtra ]
through Chief Secretary, Mantralaya ]
Mumbai- 400 032. ]
3. The Director, B. D. D. Chawl, ]
Worli having his office of the Mumbai ]
-- 1 of 7 --
2 Ch/sum No.765-2018 in
Suit No.1410-2015
Vikas Vibhag Chali, Ganpat Jadhav Marg, ]
Worli, Mumbai- 400 018. ]
4.The Superintendent Worli, B. D. D. Chawl, ]
having office at B. D. D. Chawl No.57, Ground ]
Floor, Worli, Vikas Vibhag Chali, ]
Mumbai- 400 018. ]
5. The Manager, B.D. D. Chawl, Worli Vikas ]
Vibhag Chali, having office at B.D.D. Chawl No.51]
Worli, Ground floor, Mumbai-400 018. ] ...Defendants.
AND
The Maharashtra Housing and Area Development ]
(MHADA) having office at Griha Nirman Bhuvan, ]
Bandra (East), Mumbai- 400 051. ] … Prop.
Defendant No.6
Appearances :-
Ld. Advocate Uma Jadhav for defendant no. 1.
Ld. Advocate T. A. Dhotre h/f Adv. Kapse for defendant no. 2 to 5/State.
Ld. Advocate Ms. Mangal Kadam for defendant no. 6/MHADA.
CORAM : HER HONOUR JUDGE
SMT. ASHWINI V. KASTURE
COURT ROOM NO.03
DATES : 31.07.2025
O R D E R
1. This chamber summons has taken out by the plaintiff with
prayer of amendment in the plaint and the notice of motion No.
2285/2015 as per schedule -I attached to the chamber summons.
2. It is the case of the plaintiff that he has filed the present
suit against the defendant for the reliefs as sought in the plaint in
-- 2 of 7 --
3 Ch/sum No.765-2018 in
Suit No.1410-2015
respect of the suit property namely room No. 29, BDD Chawl No.99,
Worli, Mumbai (Suit premises). During the pendency of the suit, the
MHADA have taken BDD chawl including the suit premises for
redevelopment. According to the decision of Maharashtra Government
the MHADA have taken steps for carrying out survey to prepare list of
Annexure -II in respect of tenants/ occupants of BDD chawl including
suit premises. Therefore, it is necessary to make the MHADA as a party
defendant No.6 in the suit as well as in the notice of motion. If, the
chamber summons is allowed then no prejudice will be caused to the
defendants. It will not change the nature of the suit or cause of action.
Hence, requested to allow the plaintiff to carry out the amendment and
consequential amendments in the plaint as well as notice of motion
No.2285/2015.
3. The proposed defendant No.6 i.e MHADA has given reply
to the chamber summons. According to it, the chamber summons is not
maintainable as before taking out the present chamber summons if, the
plaintiff could have taken out the search of relevant Government
Resolution, he would be able to know the exact role played by the
MHADA in BDD Chawl project and whether MHADA is necessary party
in the suit or not. The prayer made in the chamber summons is also
very wage and does not show any proper ground or sufficient reasons or
the proper documents on the basis of which the plaintiff got the
information that the MHADA has important role in the project for
preparing Annexure- II and/ or certification of tenants/ occupants of the
said chawl. No proper and justifiable reason and/ or grounds given by
the plaintiff for the delay in filing of the chamber summons. The
-- 3 of 7 --
4 Ch/sum No.765-2018 in
Suit No.1410-2015
relevant Government Resolution taken out by defendant No.2 to 5 in
this project are easily available on the website of Government of
Maharashtra. The Exhibit-A annexed with this reply shows the duty
entrusted in the different Government officers/ authority in the said
project. Therefore, requested to dismiss the chamber summons with
exemplary costs.
4. The defendant No.1 has filed affidavit in reply objecting the
chamber summons stating that the plaintiffs have filed the present suit
against him for declaration, injunction and other consequential reliefs,
as prayed in the plaint. He denies that during pendency of the suit the
MHADA have taken BDD Chawl including suit premises for
redevelopment according to the decision of Maharashtra Government
and the MHADA have taken the steps for carrying out survey to prepare
dispute Annexure-II as stated by the plaintiff. There was no single
documents annexed by the plaintiff in support of his contention. The
MHADA is not necessary party to the suit to solve the real dispute or
issues between the plaintiff and defendants. The presumption cannot be
put help to the plaintiff in delay of hearing of notice of motion pending
since 2015. Accordingly, the defendant No.1 requested to reject the
chamber summons.
5. Perused the chamber summons, affidavit in reply filed by
proposed defendant No.6 and the affidavit in reply filed by defendant
No.1. It is the contention of the plaintiff that after filing of the present
suit, there is a development of BDD chawl alongwith the suit premises
taken by the MHADA for redevelopment as per the decision of
-- 4 of 7 --
5 Ch/sum No.765-2018 in
Suit No.1410-2015
Maharashtra Government. According to the plaintiff, the MHADA has
taken the steps for carrying out survey to prepare list of annexure -II
and hence according to the plaintiff, the MHADA is necessary party and
therefore, its required to be implicated in the suit by way of making
amendment in the plaint, notice of motion as per the schedule -I
annexed to the chamber summons with consequential amendment in
both plaint as well as notice of motion.
6. The proposed defendant and the defendant No.1 both have
objected the chamber summons. According to the proposed defendant
i.e. MHADA as per the relevant Government Resolution of Maharashtra
Government. The exact role of Government officers / authorities has
been given/ shown and according to those Government Resolution the
MHADA is not the necessary party in the present suit. The proposed
defendants have also filed the copies of list of a duty entrusted to the
officer/ authority in the redevelopment project of BDD Chawl at
Naigaon, N. M. Joshi Marg, Worli, Mumbai vide of Exhibit- A. Perusal
of Exhibit-A show that at serial No.2 the department of MHADA has
entrusted with various duties as a Nodal agency and planning authority.
Considering the nature of their duties and the involvement in the
project, it appears that their presence during the trial of the suit is
necessary if, chamber summons is allowed no prejudice will be caused
to the defendant No.6. On the other hand, the plaintiff may cause harm,
loss, injury if the chamber summons is not allowed. The nature of the
amendment shows that it will not change the nature of the suit hence, I
am inclined to grant chamber summons, thus, passed the following
order:-
-- 5 of 7 --
6 Ch/sum No.765-2018 in
Suit No.1410-2015
ORDER
1. The Chamber Summons No. 765 of 2018 in Suit No.1410
of 2015 is hereby allowed.
2. The plaintiff to make amendment till next date as per the
Schedule-I attached to the chamber summons.
3. The plaintiff to file copy of amended plaint and serve its
copy to the other sides.
4. The Chamber Summons No. 765 of 2018 is disposed of
accordingly.
(ASHWINI V. KASTURE)
Judge,
City Civil Court, Greater Bombay
Dated : 31.07.2025 C.R. No.17
Dictated on : 31.07.2025
Transcribed on : 04.08.2025 and 07.08.2025
Checked on : 12.08.2025
Signed on : 14.08.2025
-- 6 of 7 --
7 Ch/sum No.765-2018 in
Suit No.1410-2015
“CERTIFIED TO BE TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF THE ORIGINAL
SIGNED JUDGMENT/ORDER”
UPLOAD DATE AND TIME NAME OF STENOGRAPHER
14.08.2025 at 5.45 p.m. Mrs. Vasanti Dattatray Bhosale
Name of the Judge (with Court Room
no.)
HHJ Smt. Ashwini V. Kasture
(Court Room No.17).
Date of Pronouncement of
Judgment/Order
31.07.2025
Judgment/Order signed by P.O. on 14.08.2025
Judgment/Order uploaded on 14.08.2025
-- 7 of 7 --