Order 3

Order Details: Chamber summons
Pdf Text: Ch/s No. 2223/19 in Suit No. 2824/19. 1 Order.
IN THE BOMBAY CITY CIVIL COURT AT BOMBAY.
CHAMBER SUMMONS NO. 2223 OF 2019
(CNR NO. MHCC010129352019)
IN
L. C. SUIT NO. 2824 OF 2019
(CNR NO. MHCC010111612019)
Kumari Farida Mohammed Bashir Ansari ...Plaintiff
Versus
The Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai
& another ...Defendants
And
Fine Braiding Works & another ...Applicants
CORAM : SHRI G.G.BHANSALI.
(C.R.NO.11).
DATE : 10th JANUARY, 2020.
Mr. Bukhari, Advocate for Plaintiff.
Mrs. Tondwalkar, Advocate for Defendant / MCGM.
Mr. Gada, Advocate for Applicants.
ORDER
This is a chamber summons taken out by applicant M/s.
Fine Braiding Works to add applicants as party defendant and
permission to participate in present suit. It is mentioned in Para 8 that
in similar 5 suits it is allowed to participate in the proceeding, in respect
of same property.
-- 1 of 3 --
Ch/s No. 2223/19 in Suit No. 2824/19. 2 Order.
2. Perused reply of other side. Heard ld. advocate Bukhari for
plaintiff. He submits that plaintiff is possessing the suit property since
his forefather. Plaintiff has done tenanted repairs and no structural
change was done. It is requested for participation of applicant in
present suit.
3. Ld. advocate Gada for applicant submits that applicants
have filed caveat. The tin shed of plaintiff is not disputed by the
applicant. There is no description of suit property nor there is pakka
construction. In view of Lease Deed dated 29/11/1990 and
Confirmation Deed in 2010, applicant vests interest in the suit property.
Hence, it is prayed to allow chamber summons.
4. On perusal of documents, applicant Fine Braiding Works
holds a lease executed by M/s. Horizon dated 29/11/1990. It was
confirmed in the year 2010. Admittedly, the scope of present suit is
limited as plaintiff has challenged a notice dated 07/10/2019, in
respect of illegal structure / construction under Section 354A of MMC
Act. Thereafter plaintiff has challenged speaking order dated
18/11/2019. There are two structures of plaintiff situated on ground
floor.
5. In view of Court Commissioner's report dated 04/01/2017,
tin shed of plaintiff is not disputed by the applicant. In view of Lease
Deed and Confirmation Deed, applicants have vested interest in the suit
premises. Therefore, presence of applicant appear to be necessary.
6. Plaintiff has concealed various facts i.e. visit of Court
Commissioner, finding of previous suits by different Court. In Suit No.
-- 2 of 3 --
Ch/s No. 2223/19 in Suit No. 2824/19. 3 Order.
88/2017 in Notice of Motion No. 265/2017 dated 06/03/2017, it is
observed in Para No.4 and 5 that how rights of applicant are involved in
the suit property. Therefore, presence of applicant is necessary.
Chamber summons deserves to be allowed. Hence the order :
ORDER
1. Chamber Summons No. 2223/2019 is allowed.
2. Applicants be made as party defendant, plaintiff to carry
out the amendment accordingly within two weeks.
3. Ch/s No. 2223/19 is disposed off accordingly.
(G.G.BHANSALI)
Judge,
City Civil & Sessions Court,
Date : 10/01/2020. Mumbai.
1. Dictated on : 09/01/2020.
2. Transcribed on : 14/01/2020.
3. Signed on : 16/01/2020.
4. Delivered to Certified :
Copy Section on
“CERTIFIED TO BE TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF THE ORIGINAL
SIGNED JUDGMENT/ORDER”
UPLOAD DATE AND TIME NAME OF STENOGRAPHER
16/01/2020. 1.33 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 10/01/2020.
Judgment/Order signed by P.O. on 16/01/2020.
Judgment/Order uploaded on 16/01/2020.
-- 3 of 3 --