Order 3

Order Details: Chamber summons
Pdf Text: Ch/s No. 1833/19 in Suit No. 2363/19. 1 Order.
IN THE BOMBAY CITY CIVIL COURT AT BOMBAY.
CHAMBER SUMMONS NO. 1833 OF 2019
(CNR NO. MHCC010103942019)
IN
S. C. SUIT NO. 2363 OF 2019
(CNR NO. MHCC010089612019)
The Kurla Dawoodi Bohra Masjid &
Kabristan Trust and Others ...Plaintiffs
Versus
Municipal Corporation for Greater Bombay ...Defendants
AND
Shahjahan Gulfam Ahmed Samani ...Intervenor
Proposed Defendant
CORAM : SHRI G.G.BHANSALI.
(C.R.NO.11).
DATE : 20th DECEMBER, 2019.
Mr. B.P.Shukla, Advocate for Plaintiffs.
Mrs. Tondwalkar, Advocate for Defendant / MCGM.
Mr. G.B.Naik, Advocate for Intervenor Proposed Defendant.
ORDER
Heard ld. advocate G.B.Naik for applicant Shahjahan
Ahmed. It is submitted that presence of applicant is necessary as she
initiated the complaint in respect of unauthorized illegal construction of
plaintiff. There are so many things which are not brought before the
Court as these may not be in knowledge of MCGM.
-- 1 of 4 --
Ch/s No. 1833/19 in Suit No. 2363/19. 2 Order.
2. Perused reply submitted by plaintiff. Ld. advocate
B.P.Shukla for plaintiff submits that applicant is neither necessary party
nor proper party. Plaintiff is dominus litus, being master of suit he
cannot compel to litigate against unwanted defendants.
3. Mr. Shukla, ld. advocate for plaintiff relied on
1. Mohamed Hussain Gulam Ali Shariffi V/s. Municipal
Corporation of Greater Bombay & Ors. [2017(6) ALL
MR 420 (S.C.)],
2. Deju Somaya Salian V/s. The Municipal Corporation of
Gr.Mumbai & Ors. (Writ Petition No. 7123/2018 dated
24/09/2018),
3. Shri Uttam R. Gite V/s. Municipal Corporation of
Greater Mumbai and Anr. (Writ Petition No. 6122/2013
dated 17/07/2013) and
4. Amit Kumar Shaw and Anr. V/s. Farida Khatoon and
Anr. [2005(5) ALL MR (S.C.) 458].
Perused ratio laid down in all aforesaid caselaws. The definition of
necessary party and scope under Order 1 Rule 10 of CPC is discussed in
impugned caselaws referred by plaintiff.
4. It is not clarified by plaintiff that what harm will cause to
plaintiff if intervenor, proposed defendant want to bring additional facts
before the Court. Admittedly, plaintiff is a dominus litus i.e. master of
the suit. However, considering peculiar facts of the case that applicant
is a tenant in Shop No.38 and impugned construction is there on the
first floor. Obviously, even though plaintiff is a landlord and proposed
defendant is a tenant, participation of proposed defendant will help the
Court to draw proper conclusion. Hence chamber summons is allowed
-- 2 of 4 --
Ch/s No. 1833/19 in Suit No. 2363/19. 3 Order.
as per following order :
ORDER
1. Chamber Summons No. 1833/2019 is made absolute.
2. Plaintiff to carry out the amendment on or before next
date, proposed defendant be mentioned as defendant no.2.
3. Ch/s No. 1833/19 is disposed off accordingly.
(Note : Ld. advocate Shukla for plaintiff requested to stay the
order. However, notice of motion is expedited by the
Hon'ble High Court as per order in A.F.O. No. 25954/2019
dated 20/09/2019. Hence, no stay is granted. On the
contrary, no express executory order is passed by this
Court, therefore, no question of stay would arise.
Both side to argue on notice of motion on next date.)
(G.G.BHANSALI)
Judge,
City Civil & Sessions Court,
Date : 20/12/2019. Mumbai.
1. Dictated on : 20/12/2019.
2. Transcribed on : 24/12/2019.
3. Signed on : 24/12/2019.
4. Delivered to Certified :
Copy Section on
“CERTIFIED TO BE TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF THE ORIGINAL
-- 3 of 4 --
Ch/s No. 1833/19 in Suit No. 2363/19. 4 Order.
SIGNED JUDGMENT/ORDER”
UPLOAD DATE AND TIME NAME OF STENOGRAPHER
24/12/2019. 1.15 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 20/12/2019.
Judgment/Order signed by P.O. on 24/12/2019.
Judgment/Order uploaded on 24/12/2019.
-- 4 of 4 --