← Library
Bombay High CourtCHS/774/2017disposed off

Jogeshwari Achalgachha Jain Sangh And 6 ORS. v. Nisar Properties Pvt. Ltd. And 8 ORS And Janam Co-Operative Housing Society Limited.

2017-11-06Hon'Ble Shri Justice R.D. Dhanuka2 pages

ppn 1 12.chs-774.17.doc

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION CHAMBER SUMMONS NO.774 OF 2017 IN SUIT NO.452 OF 2017 Janam Co-operative Housing Society Limited ..

Applicant Proposed defendant no.9 In the matter between Shri Jogeshwari Achalgachha Jain Sangh & Ors. ..

Plaintiffs Vs.

M/s.Nisar Properties Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.

..

Defendants --- Mr.P.M.Shah a/w Mr.Devendra Udani for the plaintiffs. Mr.Tejas Gokhale i/by Mr.Ashok Purohit & Co. for the applicant in chamber summons (original defendant no.9).

Mr.Vyam Shah a/w Ms.Dipti Das i/by M/s.Divya Shah & Associates for the defendant nos.1, 2, 3 & 8.

Mr.Bhavin Bhatia for the defendant no.6.

--- CORAM : R.D. DHANUKA, J.

DATE : 6th November 2017 P.C.:

.

Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties. 2.

By this chamber summons, the applicant-society seeks impleadment as party-defendant to the suit filed by the plaintiff inter alia praying for a declaration that Agreement for Sale dated 10th April 2003 executed by the defendant no.6 in favour of the plaintiff no.1 in respect of the suit property is valid, binding and subsisting on the defendant nos.1 to 6. It is the case of the applicant-society that if any order is

ppn 2 12.chs-774.17.doc passed by this Court in this suit, interest of the society would be seriously prejudiced.

3.

In my view, the contention raised by the applicant-society is correct. After perusing the prayers in the plaint, I am of the view that any order passed by this Court, if any, in this suit in terms of prayers prayed by the plaintiff would affect the rights of the applicant-society. The applicant-society is thus necessary party to the suit. 4.

Chamber summons is made absolute in terms of prayer clause (a) and (b). Amendment to be carried out within two weeks from today by the plaintiff.

5.

It is made clear that merely because the amendment is allowed by this Court as prayed by the plaintiff, the merit of the matter is not decided. Ad-interim protection granted by this Court on 5th May 2017 to continue till further orders. Hearing of the motion is expedited. R.D. DHANUKA, J.