Order 1

Order Details: Order on Exhibit
Pdf Text: ..1..
IN THE COURT OF SMALL CAUSES AT MUMBAI
( BANDRA BRANCH)
ORDER BELOW EXHIBIT 1
IN
L. D. SUIT NO. 147 OF 2022
(CNRMHSCA30013742022)
1. Mr. Jeetesh S. Varshney ...Plaintiff
Versus
1. Mr. Vikas V. Parab & Ors. ...Defendants
Mr. Mitesh Varshney, …..learned Advocate for plaintiff.
J. P. Jaiswal, …..learned Advocate for defendants.
Coram : P. K. Kharate,
Judge, C. R. No. 35,
Date : 18th February, 2023.
ORAL ORDER:
1. I have passed order below Exhibit 1 as per power under
Order 1, Rule 10 (2) of C.P.C. and called the plaintiff why the
plaintiff has made party to MHADA and Goregaon Police Station as
defendants No. 2 and 3 in the suit for declaration.
2. The plaintiff has filed written submission on the said
point vide Exhibit 29. On perusal of written submission of the
plaintiff, it appears that plaintiff stated that defendant No. 2 is
original landlord of the suit premises and defendant No. 1 is the
person who has granted tenancy rights on loan. MHADA has the
same authority and power as that of MCGM. MHADA has similar
authority and powers, rights and on lands, plots or houses situated on
/home/steno35/Shri. P. K. Kharate Judge C. R. No. 35 2023/Feb2023/Orders/1802/147 2022 LD Exh 1 appl allwd).odt SSC
-- 1 of 3 --
..2..
MHADA lands. The defendant No. 1 can approach to the MHADA to h
disturb the possession of the plaintiff. Hence, MHADA is not only
proper party but also necessary party.
3. On perusal of above submission of plaintiff, it appears
that the plaintiff himself stated that MHADA has ample power as like
MCGM in land situated in MHADA area. It means MHADA is acting as
per MHADA Act. It means the plaintiff is trying to say that defendant
No. 2 is necessary party. But it is one of the type of implementation
of MHADA as a party. It means MHADA be prohibited from taking
any legal action as per their Act. Hence, on cannot be allowed to
prohibit any legal entitity to act as per the law. Moreover, any order
passed against defendant No. 1 is binding on the defendant No. 2.
Hence, defendant No. 2 is not necessary party in the present case.
4. Moreover, the plaintiff has added Goregaon Police
Station as defendant No. 3. On perusal of written submission, it
appears that the plaintiff is trying to say that defendant No. 1 was
Police men and present Senior P. I. and other staff of defendant
Goregaon Police Station is his relatives. Goregaon Police Station is
just public authority act as per provisions of law and procedure of
law. If such types defendants added in civil suit there will be hurdle
in the work of the police. Moreover, police act as per directions of the
court. If specific order is passed in favour of the plaintiff then he will
take assistance of the police. At this juncture, there is no necessity to
add defendants No. 2 and 3 in the present matter as a party. Hence, I
pass the following order.
/home/steno35/Shri. P. K. Kharate Judge C. R. No. 35 2023/Feb2023/Orders/1802/147 2022 LD Exh 1 appl allwd).odt SSC
-- 2 of 3 --
..3..
: O R D E R :
1. The plaintiff is hereby directed to delete the name
of defendants No. 2 and 3 from title clause of the
plaint and carried out amendment accordingly
within prescribed time.
(Dictated and pronounced in Open Court.)
Bandra Mumbai. ( P. K. Kharate )
Date : 18.02.2023 Judge, C. R. No.35
Order dictated on : 18.02.2023
Order checked & signed on : 18.02.2023
/home/steno35/Shri. P. K. Kharate Judge C. R. No. 35 2023/Feb2023/Orders/1802/147 2022 LD Exh 1 appl allwd).odt SSC
-- 3 of 3 --