Dismissed

Midtown Holding Leasing and Properties Pvt. Ltd. v. Sharfuddin Unismiyakazi and Orts. and Bhikamdas Gulabchand and Co. and Ors.

Bombay HC3 Oct 2013CHS/845/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This judgment dismisses a chamber summons wherein an applicant sought to intervene in a suit for specific performance and be impleaded as a party defendant. The court held that a stranger claiming ownership is neither a necessary nor proper party in such a suit and rejected the intervention.

What did the court decide?

Chamber summons dismissed with no order as to costs.

Midtown Holding Leasing and Properties Pvt. Ltd. Vs… — Property and Title | Bombay HC (2013)

¶1

.. 1 .. CHS845/2010

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY .

¶3

ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

¶4

CHAMBER SUMMONS NO. 845 OF 2010

¶5

¶6

NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 3998 OF 2008

¶7

¶8

SUIT NO.3088 OF 2008

¶9

Midtown Holding Leasing & ... Plaintiff/Respondent. Properties Pvt. Ltd.,

¶10

V/s.

¶11

Sharfuddin Unusmiya Kazi ... Defendants.

¶12

& Ors.

¶13

Mr.Mahendra Ghelani i/b. M/s.Law Charter for respondent/plaintiff. Mr.A.R.Pai i/b. Mr.S.M.Kamble for applicant.

¶14

CORAM : R.D.DHANUKA J. DATED : October 3, 2013.

¶15

P.C. :

¶16

By this chamber summons, applicant seeks to intervene in Notice of Motion No.3998/2008 and seeks impleadment as partydefendant in this suit.

¶17

Learned counsel for the applicant invited my attention to plaint in Special Civil Suit No.312/2007 filed in the court of civil judge, Junior division, Panvel against various parties including plaintiff and defendant No.1 to 8 to this suit. In the said suit, plaintiff has inter alia prayed for a decree declaring the plaintiff as absolute owner of the suit land and for declaration that defendants have no right, title or interest of any nature whatsoever, in the suit land. Plaintiff has also challenged the

1/2

Gaikwad RD

.. 2 .. CHS845/2010

memorandum of understanding. It is submitted by learned counsel appearing for the applicant that since applicant claims to be owner of the suit property, which is subject matter of this suit and the suit filed by the applicant is prior in point of time, this suit, which is for specific performance of the agreement in respect of the same suit property, applicant is necessary and proper party and should be accordingly impleaded as party defendant. On perusal of the prayers in this suit, it is clear that the suit is for specific performance of the agreement entered into between plaintiff and the defendants No.1 to 8.

¶22

Applicant has already filed a separate suit in the court of civil judge, Junior division at Panvel for declaration of ownership by impleading the plaintiff herein and the defendant Nos.1 to 8 in the said suit as party defendant, which is in respect of the suit property in this suit. In my view, in a suit for specific performance, applicant, who is third party or stranger, is neither a necessary not proper party.

¶23

Chamber summons is thoroughly misconceived and deserves to rejected. Chamber summons is dismissed. No order as to costs.

¶24

( R.D.DHANUKA, J.)

¶25

2/2

¶26

Gaikwad RD

Midtown Holding Leasing and Properties Pvt. Ltd. v. Sharfuddin Unismiyakazi and Orts. and Bhikamdas Gulabchand and Co. and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Midtown Holding Leasing and Properties Pvt. Ltd. v. Sharfuddin Unismiyakazi and Orts. and Bhikamdas Gulabchand and Co. and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Gurmit Singh Chadha Vs Pure Drinks Ltd. (Respondent/Org.Caveator

Henit Mahendrabhai Patel Vs Smita v. Mehta

Faizan Nizam Baig Vs Naseem Banoo Nizam Baig

Francis James Almeida S/O Charles I. Almeida Vs Rosy C. Almeida Wd/O Charles I. Almeida and 3 Ors.

Atv Projects India Ltd. Vs Central Bank of India

Jayshree Mukesh Gotecha Vs Jayesh Ramniklal Gotecha