Final Order 1

Order Details: Chamber summons
Pdf Text: IN THE BOMBAY CITY CIVIL COURT AT GREATER BOMBAY
CHAMBER SUMMONS NO.1739 OF 2019
(CNR NO.MHCC010097892019)
IN
NOTICE OF MOTION NO.3348 OF 2018
IN
LONG CAUSE SUIT NO.2187 OF 2018
Rohan Developers Private Limited ... Applicant
In the matter between
Smt. Manorama Narayan Shetty …. Plaintiff
V/s.
1. The Municipal Corporation of
Greater Mumbai and Anr. … Defendants
CORAM : HER HONOUR JUDGE
SMT. S.G. SHAIKH
CITY CIVIL COURT
GR.MUMBAI ( C.R.NO.06)
DATE : 30/04/2022
Adv. Mr. Nilesh Gala for the applicant.
Adv. Mr. Chandra Naik for the plaintiff.
Adv. Ms. Meena Dhuri for the defendants/BMC.
ORAL ORDER
1. This Chamber Summons is taken out by the applicant to
implead him as party defendant to the suit.
2. The plaintiff has filed reply to the Chamber Summons and
contested the Chamber Summons.
-- 1 of 5 --
2 Ch/s. 1739/2019
3. Perused the Chamber Summons and reply of the plaintiff.
Heard advocates for the parties at the length.
4. It is contended by the Applicant that he is the landlord of
the building known as Mehta Building, 466, Nathalal Parekh Marg,
Matunga, Mumbai4000 19. He has became owner of the said property
vide Conveyance Deed dated 03.04.1995. The plaintiff is a tenant in
respect of the premises being shop Nos.12 and 13 at the ground floor in
the said building.
5. Wherein it is the case of the plaintiff that the said suit
property on which said building is situated is acquired by MHADA in the
year 1994 i.e. prior to the alleged Conveyance Deed of the applicant.
Therefore, applicant do not have any right in respect of the said
property and it is not necessary to add as a party defendant to the suit.
6. This suit is filed by the occupier i.e. plaintiff, who is a
tenant in the suit premises. The plaintiff has challenged the action of
the planning authority under section 351 of the Mumbai Municipal
Corporation Act. In this suit the applicant third party intervener has
filed this Chamber summons to implead him as a party defendant. It is
the contention of the applicant that he has challenged the acquisition
process of MHADA in the Court.
7. Order I Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure is read as
under:
“(1) Suit in name of wrong plaintiff:(1) where a suit has
been instituted in the name of the wrong person as plaintiff
or where it is doubtful whether it has been instituted in the
-- 2 of 5 --
3 Ch/s. 1739/2019
name of the right plaintiff, the Court may at any stage of
the suit, if satisfied that the suit has been instituted
through a bonafide mistake, and that it is necessary for
the determination of the real matter in dispute so to
do, order any other person to be substituted or added as
plaintiff upon such terms as the Court thinks just.
(2) Court may strike out or add parties. The Court may at
any stage of the proceedings, either upon or without the
application of either party, and on such terms as may
appear to the Court to be just, order that the name of any
party improperly joined , whether as plaintiff or defendant,
be struck out, and that the name of any person who ought
to have been joined, whether as plaintiff or defendant, or
whose presence before the Court may be necessary in order
to enable the Court effectually and completely to adjudicate
upon and settle all the questions involved in the suit, be
added.
(3) No person shall be added as plaintiff suing without a
next friend or as the next friend of a plaintiff under any
disability without his consent.
(4) Where defendant added, plaint to be amended Where
a defendant is added , the plaint shall , unless the Court
otherwise directs, be amended in such manner as may be
necessary, and amended copies of the summons and of the
plaint shall be served on the new defendant and, if the
Court thinks fit, on the original defendant”.
8. On perusal of the Chamber Summons and reply and after
hearing of the arguments of the parties this Court holds that ownership
-- 3 of 5 --
4 Ch/s. 1739/2019
of the land is not concerned or subject matter of this suit. This Court is
in the position to effectively adjudicate the suit without hearing third
party intervener. The subject matter of the suit is alleged illegal
construction made by the plaintiff and notice under section 351 of the
Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act issued by the defendant
corporation. The right of the applicant / intervener, if any, is not likely
to be infringed by the decision of the suit. Therefore, it is held that the
applicant/ intervener is not necessary or proper party to this suit and he
is not necessary to be added as a party to this suit.
9. In this background, this Chamber summons deserves to be
dismissed and following order is passed.
ORDER
1. The Chamber Summons No.1739/2019 is dismissed
2. The Chamber Summons No.1739/2019 is disposed off.
(S.G.Shaikh)
Judge,
Date :30/04/2022 City Civil Court, Gr.Mumbai.
Dictated on :30/04/2022
Typed on :30/04/2022
Signed on :
-- 4 of 5 --
5 Ch/s. 1739/2019
“CERTIFIED TO BE TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF THE ORIGINAL
SIGNED JUDGMENT/ORDER.”
30/04/2022 05.00 p.m. ( Mayuresh P. Tathe)
UPLOAD DATE AND TIME NAME OF STENOGRAPHER
Name of the Judge (With Court
room No.)
HHJ Smt. S. G. Shaikh (C.R.No.06)
Date of Pronouncement of
JUDGMENT/ORDER
30/04/2022
JUDGMENT/ORDER signed by
P.O.on
30/04/2022
JUDGMENT/ORDER uploaded on 30/04/2022
-- 5 of 5 --