Final Order 1

Order Details: Chamber summons
Pdf Text: CS NO.1189/2019 1 L.C.SUIT No.1198/2018
IN THE CITY CIVIL COURT FOR GREATER BOMBAY
AT MUMBAI.
CHAMBER SUMMONS NO.1189 OF 2019
(CNR No.MHCC010067062019)
IN
LONG CAUSE SUIT NO.1198 OF 2018
(CNR NO.MHCC010039002018)
Mr. Shankar Bhiku Rahate ....Plaintiff
V/s
Mumbai Corporation for Greater Mumbai and Ors. ....Defendants
AND
Smt. Tunga Krishna Devadiga ….Applicant
Appearances:
Adv. V.S. Daware for the Plaintiff
Adv. Tondwalkar for defendant / MCGM
Adv. J. S. Kini with Adv. Gharat and Adv. Mahamuni for applicant
CORAM : HIS HONOUR JUDGE
SHRI S.D. KULKARNI
(Court Room no. 8)
DATED : 2nd March 2022.
O R A L O R D E R
1. Perused Chamber Summons, reply filed by the plaintiff.
Heard both the advocates at length. The applicant filed this Chamber
Summons for adding him as a party defendant in the suit.
2. The contention of the applicant that he is the owner of the
suit property. The present action initiated by the defendant / MCGM
due to the complaint given by the applicant. The notice issued by the
defendant / MCGM of demolition of the suit property so, applicant
being the owner his right, title and interest involved in the suit
property. Therefore, the applicant prayed that he be included as the
-- 1 of 4 --
CS NO.1189/2019 2 L.C.SUIT No.1198/2018
party defendant in the suit.
3. The plaintiff opposed the application by contending that
applicant is neither the necessary party nor the proper party. This is the
dispute between the plaintiff being occupier of the suit premises and the
defendant / MCGM being notice issued to the plaintiff. So, prayed for
rejection of the Chamber Summons.
4. Heard both the advocates at length. Perused Chamber
Summons and documents attached alongwith it. The advocate for the
plaintiff relied on the ratio laid down in the case of Adam A. Sorathia
and Anr. V/s. MCGM and Another 2001 Vol(3) Mh.L.J. 288 therein
the Hon'ble High Court held that landlord have direct and substantial
interest in demised premises and would be able to place all facts before
trial Court for adjudicating upon issues effectually and were proper
parties though relief of perpetual injunction was sought only against
Municipal Corporation.
5. The advocate for the applicant also relied on the ratio laid
down in the case of Kantaben Chandulal Kalidas V/s. Parsi Dairy
Farm and Others 1985 Mh.L.J. 220 therein also the Hon'ble High
Court held that owner is the proper party in the suit being owner of the
suit premises.
6. In the present case defendant / MCGM issued notice
u/s.351 of MMC Act, 1988. The suit premises is owned by the applicant
therefore his interest involved in the subject matter of the suit. If, the
suit property will be demolished definitely his rights will be affected.
Therefore, in my opinion applicant is a proper party and he should be
-- 2 of 4 --
CS NO.1189/2019 3 L.C.SUIT No.1198/2018
added as a party defendant in the proceeding. Considering this, I pass
the following order :
O R D E R
1. The Chamber Summons No.1189 of 2019 in Suit No.1198
of 2018 is made absolute.
2. The Plaintiff is directed to add applicant as the party
defendant in the suit by amending the plaint within
stipulated period.
3. The plaintiff is directed to serve the copy of amended plaint
to all defendants.
4. The Chamber Summons No.1189 of 2019 in Suit No.1198
of 2018 is disposed off accordingly.
(S.D.Kulkarni)
Adhoc Judge,
City Civil Court,
Date : 02.03.2022 Gr. Mumbai.
Dictated on : 02.03.2022
Transcribed on : 02.03.2022
Signed by HHJ on: 02.03.2022
-- 3 of 4 --
CS NO.1189/2019 4 L.C.SUIT No.1198/2018
CERTIFIED TO BE TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF THE ORIGINAL
SIGNED JUDGMENT/ORDER.”
UPLOAD DATE AND TIME : 03.03.2022 at 5.30 p.m.
NAME OF STENOGRAPHER : Mrs. J.S. Chavan
Name of the Judge (With Court
Room no.)
HHJ Shri. S.D. Kulkarni
C.R. no.08
Date of Pronouncement of
JUDGMENT/ORDER
02.03.2022
JUDGMENT/ORDER signed by
P.O. on
02.03.2022
JUDGMENT/ORDER uploaded
on
03.03.2022
-- 4 of 4 --