Final Order 1

Order Details: Chamber summons
Pdf Text: C/S No.1933/2019 ..1.. Suit No.960/2017
CNR No.MHCC01110752019
IN THE BOMBAY CITY CIVIL COURT FOR GREATER BOMBAY
CHAMBER SUMMONS NO.1933 OF 2019
IN
SUIT NO.960 OF 2017
Joe Savio D'souza .. Plaintiff
Versus
Suryakant Jedi .. Defendant
And
Savita Suryakant Jedi .. Applicant
Mr. Dinesh Vishwakarma, advocate for plaintiff
Mr. Sameer Logade, advocate for applicant
CORAM : M. T. ASIM, J
COURT ROOM NO.02
DATED : 16th December, 2019
ORAL ORDER
Chamber summons is taken out by the applicant Savita
Suryakant Jedi for impleading her as party defendant to the suit.
2. It is the contention of applicant that she is wife of defendant
Suryakant Jedi. She is tenant in respect of suit premises. Agreement of
tenancy has been executed in respect of suit premises in between her
and original landlord Domnic P. D'souza on 9th September, 1992. It
appears from the contents in plaint that suit has been filed treating her
husband Suryakant Jedi as trespasser. When her landlord noticed the
said fact he informed her and her husband about present suit. It is
further contended that she is proper and necessary party because she is
-- 1 of 4 --
C/S No.1933/2019 ..2.. Suit No.960/2017
lawful tenant of suit premises. Her husband is family member so he is
not trespasser as pointed out by the plaintiff. In above circumstances
she prayed for impleading her as party defendant to the suit.
3. Plaintiff has filed reply and opposed chamber summons. It is
contended that agreement of tenancy is false and bogus document. So
also rent receipts are false and bogus documents and fabricated for the
purpose of present application. Applicant has no locus standi in the
present suit and she can approach competent court regarding her
grievances. Accordingly, plaintiff has opposed notice of motion.
4. Perused chamber summons, affidavit in support of it, reply of
plaintiff and record and proceeding of the present case. Heard
respective counsel for applicant and plaintiff. They advanced their
argument in accordance with respective contention of applicant and
plaintiff.
5. It is pertinent to note that plaintiff has filed suit for possession
of the suit premises and also sought declaration that defendant
Suryakant Jedi is trespasser in relation to suit premises. Applicant who
is wife of defendant no.1 claimed that she has been inducted as tenant
in the suit premises by the original landlord Dominic P. D'souza on 9th
September, 1992. She has placed reliance upon copy of agreement
dated 09.09.1992 filed by newly added defendant No.2. It shows that
applicant has been inducted as tenant in one bedroom flat on west side
on second floor in Velankani Apartment. Mention may be made here
that plaintiff has claimed possession of same flat from the defendant
no.1. She also relied upon copy of rent receipts filed by newly added
defendant which relate to suit premises. Those stands in the name of
-- 2 of 4 --
C/S No.1933/2019 ..3.. Suit No.960/2017
applicant. Thus, from the material placed on record prima facie it can
be said that applicant has interest in relation to suit premises. Whether
those documents are forged or fabricated as claimed by the plaintiff is
matter of evidence which can be decided after conducting fullfledged
trial. Learned advocate for plaintiff submitted that in case of decree of
suit, applicant can approach to the court by way of an obstructionist. I
am not impressed by his submission in that regard for the reason that,
there are materials on record to show that applicant has interest in suit
premises. More so, her presence is necessary for complete adjudication
of controversy between the parties. Her presence will certainly assist the
court in just decision of the matter. Therefore, I am inclined to direct
plaintiff to implead applicant as party defendant No.3. Hence, pass
following order:
ORDER
1. Chamber Summons No.1933 of 2019 is allowed in following
terms:
Plaintiff is directed to implead applicant as party defendant No.3
within period of two weeks from the date of this order.
2. After carrying out amendment in cause title of the plaint, writ of
summons be served upon newly added defendant.
3. Plaintiff is at liberty to take out appropriate proceeding for
consequential amendment in body of plaint in view of addition
of parties.
4. Accordingly, chamber summons is disposed off.
(M. T. Asim)
Judge
Date : 16.12.2019 Gr. Bombay
Typed on : 16.12.2019
HHJ signed on :
-- 3 of 4 --
C/S No.1933/2019 ..4.. Suit No.960/2017
“CERTIFIED TO BE TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF THE ORIGINAL
SIGNED JUDGMENT/ORDER.”
17.12.2019
UPLOAD DATE AND TIME Mrs. S. P. Pawar
NAME OF STENOGRAPHER
Name of the Judge (With Court
Room No.)
H.H.J. Shri. M. T. Asim
C.R.No.02
Date of Pronouncement of
JUDGMENT/ORDER
16.12.2019
JUDGMENT/ORDER signed by P.O.
on
17.12.2019
JUDGMENT/ORDER uploaded on 17.12.2019
-- 4 of 4 --