Final Order 1

Order Details: Chamber summons
Pdf Text: CS 104718 in L.C. SU 220917 : 1 : Dt. 03.07.2018
IN THE BOMBAY CITY CIVIL COURT AT BOMBAY
CHAMBER SUMMONS NO. 1047 OF 2018
(CNR NO. MHCC010074372018)
IN
LONG CAUSE SUIT NO. 2209 OF 2017
(CNR NO. MHCC010092892017)
Sacchidanand Laxman Lad ...Plaintiff
Versus
1. The Municipal Corporation Of
Greater Mumbai
2. Smt. Lila w/o. Vishnu Vaity
3. Smt. Jaymala Ganesh Vaity ...Defendants
And
Prashant Shantaram Dolas ...Applicant /
Intervener
CORAM : HER HONOUR JUDGE
SMT. SANJASHREE J. GHARAT
(C.R. NO.08)
DATE : 03.07.2018.
Adv. Mr. Satyam Dubey h/f Adv. Pankar for Plaintiff.
Adv. Mrs. Kamble for Defendant no. 1 / BMC.
Adv. Mr. S.J. Shelke for Defendant nos. 2 and 3.
Adv. Mr. Vipin Pathak for Applicant / Intervener.
ORAL ORDER
The Present Chamber Summons is filed by the Applicant /
Intervener for impleading him as a party to the suit.
2. The Applicant claims that he is the coowner of the suit
property and therefore he is having right, title and interest in the land
bearing No. 79, Hissa No. 1, Navghar Village, Mulund, Mumbai.
However, he recently came to know about the suit filed by the Plaintiff
in respect of the suit property and Writ Petition filed by Defendant
-- 1 of 4 --
CS 104718 in L.C. SU 220917 : 2 : Dt. 03.07.2018
No. 2 and others. It is his contention that since he is having right, title
and interest in the suit premises he is necessary and proper party to the
present suit. Therefore he prayed that Chamber Summons be allowed
and he be added as a party defendant in the present suit.
3. The Plaintiff filed Say and resisted the application. It is
submitted by the Plaintiff that necessary party is one whose presence is
absolutely necessary in the suit and without whose presence, the issue
involved in the said suit can not effectively and completely be
adjudicated upon. It is further submitted that the Plaintiff is the
dominuslitus and as such, he can not be forced to add parties to the
litigation only because other party feels that it will be convenient to join
somebody else. It is further submitted by the Plaintiff the present
Chamber Summons is against the provisions of law. Therefore, Plaintiff
prayed to reject the Chamber Summons filed by the Applicant.
4. Heard learned advocates appearing on behalf of both the
parties.
5. Considering the rival submissions made on behalf of both
the parties following points arise for my determination and I answer the
same together with reasons thereon as under :
POINTS FINDINGS
1. Whether Applicant proves that he is
necessary / proper party to the present
proceeding ?
In the Negative.
REASONS
6. At the outset I want to mention that the present suit is filed
-- 2 of 4 --
CS 104718 in L.C. SU 220917 : 3 : Dt. 03.07.2018
by the Plaintiff challenging the action of the Defendant / Corporation
threatening to demolish the suit premises. After going through the
Chamber Summons it appears that Applicant is claiming himself as a
coowner of the Land bearing Survey No. 79, Hissa No. 1, Navghar
Village, Mulund. He claims right, title and interest in the said land.
However, the suit premises is a residential premises bearing Room No.
04, Anandibai Chawl situated on CTS No. 1244, Navgharpada.
Therefore, it is not pointed out that suit premises and the property in
which he is claiming right, title and interest are identical.
7. Secondly, it is to be seen whether Applicant is necessary
party without whose presence the issue involved in the suit can not
effectively and completely adjudicated upon. It is pertinent to note that
the present suit is filed challenging the action of Defendant /
Corporation. Therefore, for adjudication of the dispute the Defendant /
Corporation is necessary and proper party.
8. After going through the averments made by the Applicant,
his main grievance against defendant no. 2 and 3 who are added
subsequently namely Lila Vaity and Jaymala Vaity. It is his grievance
that some of the persons are falsely claiming rights in his property on
the basis of forged and fabricated documents. However he had not
commented anything about the document by which Plaintiff is claiming
title in the suit structure. Moreover, in order to decide the interse
dispute between coowners remedy is available to file separate suit.
The dispute as regards to the title can not be adjudicated upon in the
suit filed challenging the action of the Municipal Corporation.
Therefore, in my view Applicant / Intervenor is neither necessary nor
-- 3 of 4 --
CS 104718 in L.C. SU 220917 : 4 : Dt. 03.07.2018
proper party to the present proceedings. Therefore, I record my
findings to Point No. 1 in the Negative and proceed to pass following
Order :
ORDER
The Chamber Summons No. 1047/2018 is hereby rejected.
(Sanjashree J. Gharat )
Additional Sessions Judge,
City Civil & Sessions Court,
Gr. Mumbai.
Date : 03.07.2018.
Dictated on : 03.07.2018.
Transcribed on : 04.07.2018.
Signed on : 06.07.2018.
“CERTIFIED TO BE TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF THE ORIGINAL SIGNED
JUDGMENT/ORDER.”
10.07.2018 at 5.00 a.m. (Y.M. SAKHARKAR)
UPLOAD DATE AND TIME NAME OF STENOGRAPHER
Name of the Judge (With Court
room no.)
SMT. SANJASHREE J. GHARAT
(C.R. NO.08)
Date of Pronouncement of
JUDGMENT/ ORDER
03.07.2018
JUDGMENT/ORDER signed by P.O.
on
06.07.2018
JUDGMENT/ORDER uploaded on 10.07.2018
-- 4 of 4 --