Order 1

Order Details: Chamber summons
Pdf Text: Ch/s No. 1035/18 in Suit No. 42/2017. 1 Order.
IN THE BOMBAY CITY CIVIL COURT AT BOMBAY.
CHAMBER SUMMONS NO. 1035 OF 2018
(CNR NO. MHCC01-007411-2018)
IN
LONG CAUSE SUIT NO. 42 OF 2017
(CNR NO. MHCC01-000054-2017)
Yusuf Mohd. Naim Khan ...Plaintiff
Versus
Municipal Corporation for Greater Mumbai ...Defendants
And
Prabhakar Keshav Bagle ...Intervener/Applicant
CORAM : SHRI G.G.BHANSALI.
(C.R.NO.11).
DATE : 27th FEBRUARY, 2020.
Mr. V.T.Dubey, Advocate for Plaintiff.
Mrs. Mhatre, Advocate for Defendants / MCGM.
Ms. Trupti Surve, Advocate for Applicant.
ORDER
This is a chamber summons taken out by applicant
Prabhakar Bagle to implead him as party defendant.
2. Ld. Advocate Surve for applicant submits that some part of
the suit property was sold by him in view of Conveyance Deed dated
20/08/2015. As described in Para 5 of the affidavit in support, details
are given in respect of how much part was sold and remaining part is
-- 1 of 3 --
Ch/s No. 1035/18 in Suit No. 42/2017. 2 Order.
owned and possessed by applicant. However, applicant has developed
the property sold to him by way of encroachment and by creating
nuisance to the premises which is in possession of applicant.
3. Perused reply endorsed below chamber summons. Ld.
Advocate V.T.Dubey for plaintiff submits that it is a dispute between
MCGM and plaintiff in view of notice dated 27/12/2016. It is settled
law that dispute in respect of ownership cannot be adjudicated in notice
issued by the MCGM. It is claimed to reject the chamber summons.
REASONS
4. It is not disputed that plaintiff entered into bundle of rights
including ownership, possession etc. in view of Conveyance Deed dated
20/08/2015. As mentioned in Para 23 of the Conveyance Deed, it is
clarified that original landlord / applicant will not object to the
development of the premises, if any.
5. However, on perusal of allegations levelled from Para No.5
to 8, there appear to be encroachment in open space reserved for
plaintiff. In view of photographs annexed dated 03/01/2017, prima
facie there is substance in respect of vertical extension. In view of
access to staircase created by M.S. angle from ground floor to first floor,
from one side support of a wall came to be obtained. Obviously, in said
circumstances, presence of applicant is necessary to proceed for
appropriate order in view of legality of notice dated 27/12/2016.
Hence the order :
- ORDER -
1. Chamber Summons No. 1035/2018 is made absolute in
view of prayer clause (A) and (B).
-- 2 of 3 --
Ch/s No. 1035/18 in Suit No. 42/2017. 3 Order.
2. Plaintiff to carry out the amendment within two weeks.
3. Applicant be joined as defendant no.2. He is at liberty to
submit written statement.
4. Ch/s. No. 1035/18 is disposed off accordingly.
(G.G.BHANSALI)
Judge,
City Civil & Sessions Court,
Date : 27/02/2020. Mumbai.
1. Dictated on : 27/02/2020.
2. Transcribed on : 29/02/2020.
3. Signed on : 29/02/2020.
4. Delivered to Certified :
Copy Section on
“CERTIFIED TO BE TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF THE ORIGINAL
SIGNED JUDGMENT/ORDER”
UPLOAD DATE AND TIME NAME OF STENOGRAPHER
29/02/2020. 5.51 p.m. Miss M.A.Kulkarni
Name of the Judge (with Court Room no.) HHJ Shri G.G.Bhansali.
(Court Room No.11).
Date of Pronouncement of Judgment/Order 27/02/2020.
Judgment/Order signed by P.O. on 29/02/2020.
Judgment/Order uploaded on 29/02/2020.
-- 3 of 3 --