Final Order 1

Order Details: Chamber summons
Pdf Text: CNR No. :MHCC01-010292-2019. .1. CH/S. No. 1798/2019 in
L.C. Suit No. 1692/2018.
IN THE BOMBAY CITY CIVIL COURT AT BOMBAY.
CHAMBER SUMMONS NO. 1798 OF 2019.
IN
L.C. SUIT NO. 1692 OF 2018.
Anuradha Krishnakumar Bagwe. …................... ….. PLAINTIFF.
V/s.
MCGM+1. …...…………………………………. ….. DEFENDANTS.
And
A.H. Wadia Trust + 4. …..……………………… …… APPLICANTS.
CORAM : Shri. A.G. Santani.
(Court Room No.11).
DATED : 16th November, 2022.
APPEARANCES :
Mr. Pratap F. Singh, Ld. Advocate for the Plaintiff.
Mr. Sunil C. Khandagale, Ld. Advocate for the Defendants.
Mr. Anshul Rathi, Ld. Advocate for the Applicants.
01. The applicants - A.H. Wadia Trust along-with his Trustees,
filed this Chamber Summons (for the brevity the 'Ch/s.'), for addition as
'the party defendants' in this suit. Perused the Ch/s., the accompanying
affidavit of applicant No. 2 - Mr. Jehangir Adi Wadia, the plaintiff’s reply
and say of the defendants. Heard both the sides.
02. Considering the record, the points for determination, along-
with my findings and the reasons therefor, are as under :
Sr. No. POINTS FINDINGS
(i). Whether presence of the applicants is
necessary in order to enable the Court
effectually and completely to adjudicate
upon and settle all the questions
involved in the suit ?………………....…. …
Yes, they are the
proper parties to
the suit.
(ii). What Order ? ..............…....................... …. As per final Order.
-- 1 of 4 --
CNR No. :MHCC01-010292-2019. .2. CH/S. No. 1798/2019 in
L.C. Suit No. 1692/2018.
-: REASONS FOR THE FINDINGS :-
AS TO POINT NO. 1
03. By filing this Ch/s., the applicants came with a specific case
that applicant No.1 is owner of the lands under CTS Nos. 419, 419/1,
419/2 and 419/3. This is the Public Trust, governed by provisions of the
Maharashtra Public Trusts Act of 1950, having various lands at Mumbai
Suburban area. Being so, he is having a direct and substantial interest in
subject matter of the suit. Hence, it is essential for effectual adjudication
of the present suit that the applicants may be heard before passing any
Orders in this matter, as the same may affect their interests in property.
Being the owners, they are also the necessary and proper parties to this
suit. The plaintiff objected the Ch/s. on the count that it is filed without
any cause of action and therefore, it is not maintainable in the eyes of
law. She never carried any unauthorized construction. The suit premises
existed even prior to the year 1962. Still, on the say of some interested
persons, the defendants proceeded against the same. In this manner, the
matter is purely in between the plaintiff and the defendants/MCGM and
presence of the applicants is not needed. That apart, in the present suit,
the right, title or interest in the suit premises are not being decided and
hence also, they have no locus to be joined as 'the parties' in the present
suit. Although, she admitted that applicant No.1 is owner of the above
referred CTS Numbers. In support of her contentions, the plaintiff relied
upon the case of Mohd. Hussain Gulam Ali Shariffi V. MCGM and the
Others, Civil Appeal No.12273 of 2016 (Arising Out Of SLP (C) No.
35321/2016), dtd. 09.12.2016.
04. Having considered the rival stands, at the outset, it is to be
noted that by filing this suit, the plaintiff came with a specific case that
he is the occupier of the suit premises. It existed prior to the year 1960
-- 2 of 4 --
CNR No. :MHCC01-010292-2019. .3. CH/S. No. 1798/2019 in
L.C. Suit No. 1692/2018.
and therefore, issuance of this notice, U/s. 354-A of the MMC Act is not
justified. The plaint, more precisely para 4, reveal that even the plaintiff
didn’t dispute ownership of applicant No.1 over the suit premises. Being
so, it can safely be arrived at that the applicants are having their direct
and substantial interest in the matter. I have gone through the ratio laid
in the case of Mohd. Hussain, Cited Supra. I am also in agreement with
the same. However, with all respects, I am of the opinion that the same
is not applicable to the present set of facts. simply because, here, status
of the applicants, as owners of the suit premises, is not disputed. Hence,
considering nature of this suit, certainly, passing of any Orders, without
affording them a chance of hearing, would affect their rights in the suit
property. True it is that they are not the necessary parties, in absence of
whom the suit can not be adjudicated. Still, they are the proper parties
to the suit, whose presence would facilitate 'just decision' of the matter.
Simultaneously, if they are so joined, no harm would be caused even to
the plaintiff. Therefore, I answered point No.1 in the affirmative and in
answer to point No. 2, I pass the following Order :
-: O R D E R :-
(i). Chamber Summons No. 1798/2019 is partly allowed in
terms of prayer clause (a) only.
(ii). The plaintiff is called upon to incorporate names of the
applicants as the party defendants in the cause title of
plaint, within two weeks from the passing of this Order,
and to file the copy of amended plaint simultaneously.
(iii). The plaintiff is further called upon to ensure due service of
pleadings on newly added applicants, within two weeks
therefrom.
(iv). Chamber Summons No. 1798/2019 accordingly, stands
disposed of.
{A.G. Santani}
Mumbai. Ad-hoc Judge,
Dated : 16.11.2022. City Civil Court, Mumbai.
Dictated on : 16.11.2022.
Transcribed on : 16.11.2022.
Signed on : 17.11.2022.
-- 3 of 4 --
CNR No. :MHCC01-010292-2019. .4. CH/S. No. 1798/2019 in
L.C. Suit No. 1692/2018.
“CERTIFIED TO BE TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF THE ORIGINAL
SIGNED JUDGMENT/ORDER”
UPLOAD DATE AND TIME NAME OF STENOGRAPHER
18.11.2022 at 1.48 p.m. Mrs. S.R.Mejari
Name of the Judge HHJ Shri A.G.Santani
(Court Room No.11).
Date of Pronouncement of Judgment/Order 16.11.2022.
Judgment/Order signed by P.O. on 17.11.2022.
Judgment/Order uploaded on 18.11.2022.
-- 4 of 4 --