Final Order 1

Order Details: Chamber summons
Pdf Text: 1
MHCC010099132019
IN THE COURT OF JUDGE, CITY CIVIL COURT
AT GREATER BOMBAY
CHAMBER SUMMONS NO. 1749 OF 2019
IN
SUMMARY SUIT NO. 32 OF 2018
Shri Jagannath Steel Company ...Plaintiff
V/s.
Siddharth Tech and Ors. ...Defendants
Appearance :
Ld. Adv. Mr. Ganesh Gupta for plaintiff.
Defendants absent.
Coram : DR. S. D. TAWSHIKAR
C. R. NO : 61
Heard on : 17/04/2023.
Decided on : 17/04/2023
ORDER
Defendants have taken out present Chamber Summons
(CS) seeking directions against plaintiff to add defendant No.4 as party
defendant.
2. This Court by order dated 17-02-2023 passed following
order.
-- 1 of 5 --
2 ORDER IN CHS NO. 1633/22
IN SU NO.6793/03
“Adv.Ganesh Gupta for plaintiff present. None for defendants.
Defendants have taken out C/S No.1749/19 for impleading
respondent i.e. M.S.Pingale Builders Pvt. Ltd. as party
defendant to present suit.
Prima facie I find that the application for addition of
parties, at the behest of the defendant, not maintainable.
Defendants to satisfy the court about the same. Failure of
defendants to work out the C/S on next date would entail
passing of appropriate order on C/S. Matter is adj to
17/04/2023 for hearing on C/S.”
3. Record reveals that on last three dates, defendant No.3 was
absent. Considering the short issue involved in the matter, I have taken
up the same for hearing.
4. I have gone through the CS and affidavit filed in its
support. Defendant contends that the proposed defendant No.4 was the
highest bidder of the tender pertaining to the construction of the
additional infrastructure at K.K.Field Firing Range, Ahmednagar Fort.
Subsequently defendant No.4 entered into sub-contract with defendant
No. 1 on 06-08-2012. It is contended that in view of the agreement
between defendant No.1 and defendant No.4, defendant No.1
purchased raw materials from the plaintiff to commence the
construction work. However, defendant No.4 failed to pay the amount
to defendant No.1.
5. It is further contended by defendant No. 3 that in the
affidavit Defendant No.4 by way of Memorandum of Understanding
(MOU) dated 23-12-2014 agreed to settle outstanding dues of
defendant No.1 to the tune of Rs. 4,58,15,715/-. However, defendant
-- 2 of 5 --
3 ORDER IN CHS NO. 1633/22
IN SU NO.6793/03
No.4 resiled from the terms of MOU. It is contended that thus defendant
No.4 is necessary party to the present suit. Therefore, plaintiff ought to
have joined him as party defendant.
6. Plaintiff has objected the CS by filing detailed Affidavit-in-
reply. Heard Mr. Ganesh Gupta for the plaintiff. He submits that
plaintiff has no nexus with defendant No.4. The plaintiff has supplied
material to defendant No.1 and therefore the invoices were raised
against defendant No.1. The defendant No.1 may have some
contractual relation with defendant No.4, however same is not related
to the claim raised by the plaintiff. As such, he submits that defendant
No.4 is not either proper or necessary party. Therefore, the present CS
be dismissed. He further submits that CS is filed with a view to delay
hearing of Summons for Judgment (SJ). He thus submits to impose cost
on defendant No.1.
7. I have gone through the CS as well as the reply. On perusal
of the plaint it reveals that the plaintiff has claimed supply of
goods/material to the defendant No.1 to 3 only. Plaintiff, therefore, has
sought decree against present defendants only. It needs to be considered
that the plaintiff being the master of the suit it must be left to the
discretion of plaintiff to decide against whom he seeks decree.
8. In matter in hand, plaintiff has come with simple and clear
stand that he has no nexus with defendant No.4. From the record it
further transpires that the alleged transaction between defendant No.1
and defendant No.4 is not related to the claim raised by the plaintiff.
The plaintiff has no nexus with the transaction between defendant
No. 3 and proposed defendant. Defendant No. 3 is always at liberty to
-- 3 of 5 --
4 ORDER IN CHS NO. 1633/22
IN SU NO.6793/03
take out appropriate proceedings against the proposed defendant No. 4,
as permissible under the law.
9. Thus, I do not find the scope of the present Summary suit
can be extended to add defendant No.4 as party defendant. Hence, I am
of the view that the application lacks merit and hence deserves to be
rejected.
ORDER
1. Chamber Summons No. 1749/2019 stands rejected.
2. Cost in cause.
3. Chamber Summons No.1749/2019 is disposed of accordingly.
(Dr. S. D. Tawshikar)
Judge, City Civil Court, Gr. Mumbai.
Date- 17-04-2023. Court Room No.61
Dictated on : 17-04-2023
Transcribed on : 18-04-2023
Signed on : 20-04-2023
-- 4 of 5 --
5 ORDER IN CHS NO. 1633/22
IN SU NO.6793/03
“CERTIFIED TO BE TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF THE ORIGINAL
SIGNED JUDGMENT/ORDER”
UPLOAD DATE AND TIME NAME OF STENOGRAPHER
21-04-2023 at 5.30p.m. Mrs. V. V. Malgaonkar
Name of the Judge
(with Court Room No.)
Dr. S.D. Tawshikar
C.R. No.61
Date of Pronouncement of JUDGMENT/
ORDER
17-04-2023
JUDGMENT/ORDER signed by P. O. on 20-04-2023
JUDGMENT/ORDER uploaded on 21-04-2023
-- 5 of 5 --