Final Order 1

Order Details: Chamber summons
Pdf Text: : 1 :
CNR No.MHCC010056872018
IN THE BOMBAY CITY CIVIL COURT AT BOMBAY
CHAMBER SUMMONS NO.800 OF 2018
IN
S.C. SUIT NO.1870 OF 2016
Mr. Rajeshwar Vishwanath Shastri .. Plaintiff
Versus
Mr. Umesh Pandurang Patade
and another. .. Defendants
AND
Mr. Abhishek Waman Padelkar .. Applicant
Appearance:
Ld. Advocate Rakesh Agrawal for plaintiff.
Ld. Advocate Ram Pawade for applicant/intervener.
CORAM : HIS HONOUR JUDGE
SHRI ANAND L. YAWALKAR
(COURT ROOM NO. 31)
DATED : 26.02.2019
: ORDER :
1. This Chamber summons is taken out by the
applicant/intervener for adding him as a proper and necessary party in
the suit.
2. Counsel for the intervener submitted that plaintiff has filed
the suit against the defendants no. 1 and 2. That the same defendants
no. 1 and 2 represented him of selling room No. 606, 6th floor, Samrath
Kurpa Coop, Housing Society Ltd., Sayani Road, Mumbai for Rs. 35
-- 1 of 4 --
: 2 :
Lacs. He gave Rs. 10 Lacs on 26.03.2012, Rs 7 Lacs on 28.05.2012 and
Rs. One Lac in cash. Memorandum of Understanding was executed
between the applicant and defendant no. 1 on 26.03.2012 and
28.05.2012. As per the contention of intervener, defendant no. 1 started
avoiding him for 4 years. Thereafter defendant again promised and
absconded. As per their contention plaintiff had filed the suit in respect
of same premises, which was offered to sell them by defendants no. 1
and 2 and thus, they are proper and necessary party to the suit.
3. Plaintiff appeared and submitted that the Memorandum of
Understanding was signed on 26.03.2012 and second Memorandum of
Understanding was signed on 28.05.2012 with the applicant. They
admitted that it is in respect of the same suit premises. It was further
submitted that the claim of intervener is not concerned with them. It is
independent with distinct cause of action. They are not concerned with
the alleged Memorandum of Understanding executed between the
intervener and defendant dated 26.03.2012 and 28.05.2012 and prayed
to dismiss the motion.
4. Heard Ld. Counsel Ram Pawade for interven/applicant and
Advocate Rakesh Agrawal for plaintiff. Perused the material on record.
5. Upon considering the hearing it is not disputed that the
defendants executed Memorandum of Understanding in respect of suit
premises with the plaintiff and also with the intervener. It is also
apparent that the defendant is absconding. Prima facie it appears that
he had cheated the plaintiff and intervener both of them. No
independent suit is filed by the intervener against the defendant.
Similarly, a complaint was filed by the intervener with police which was
-- 2 of 4 --
: 3 :
not registered and it was termed as a civil matter.
6. Upon considering the hearing it is evident that the cause of
action on plaintiff and intervener are different. They have no concern or
any contract with each other. The only common aliment is that both
plaintiff and intervener are duped by the same defendant. Being the suit
suit filed by the plaintiff against the defendant is based on different
cause of action of which intervener is not concerned with. The court can
passed judgment and order without the presence of intervener.
Intervener does not appears to be proper and necessary party in the
suit. Hence, considering this accordingly I pass the following order.
: ORDER :
Chamber Summons No.800 of 2018 is dismissed.
Anand.L.Yawalkar
Judge,
City Civil & Sessions Court,
Date: 26.02.2019 Gr. Mumbai
Dictated on : 26.02.2019
Transcribed on : 27.02.2019
Signed on : 27.02.2019
“CERTIFIED TO BE TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF THE ORIGINAL
SIGNED JUDGMENT/ORDER.”
On 27.02.2019 at 3.20 p.m.
UPLOAD DATE AND TIME Mrs. P.R.Vengurlekar
NAME OF STENOGRAPHER
-- 3 of 4 --
: 4 :
Name of the Judge
(With Court Room No.)
H.H.J. Anand.L.Yawalkar
C.R.No.31
Date of Pronouncement of
JUDGMENT/ORDER
26.02.2019
JUDGMENT/ORDER signed by P.O. on 27.02.2019
JUDGMENT/ORDER uploaded on 27.02.2019
-- 4 of 4 --