Petitioner challenged a trial court order allowing impleadment of legal representatives as necessary parties. The High Court dismissed the writ petition, upholding the opinion that their presence was essential for complete adjudication.
Writ petition dismissed; impugned order of the trial Judge allowing Chamber Summons is upheld.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
WP2441_16.sxw
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MUMBAI CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO.2441 OF 2016
Nelson George Wilington @ Downey through his Constituted Attorney Minal Mohan Lokegaonkar Vs.
Jyoti Pattam and others
… Petitioner
… Respondents
Mr. Vijay Patil i/b. Mr. Jagdish Jayale for Petitioner. Mr. Kunal V. Phoole for Respondent No.1. Mr. Sandeep V. Mahadik for Respondents No.4 to 8.
CORAM : R. G. KETKAR, J. DATE : MARCH 30, 2016
P.C. :
Heard Mr. Patil, learned Counsel for petitioner, Mr. Phoole, learned Counsel for respondent No.1 and Mr. Mahadik, learned Counsel for respondents No.4 to 8 at length.
1/3
WP2441_16.sxw
construction, erection and / or in any manner encroaching and / or interfering with the suit property namely room No.3, 4 and 5 situate on Survey No.152, Hissa No.2 (pt.), C.T.S.No.1707/1 to 1707/6, Sohan Singh Chawl, Vatsala Niwas, G. W. Downey Chawl, Near Municipal Garden, Khotwadi, T.P.S. VI, Santacruz (West), Mumbai 400 054 (for short 'suit property'); for mandatory injunction against respondents No.2 and 3 for taking action as contemplated under Sections 351 and 354-A of the Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, 1888 and further actions under the provisions of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966.
2/3
WP2441_16.sxw
(R. G. KETKAR, J.)
Minal Parab
3/3
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the trial judge committed any error in allowing impleadment of legal representatives who have not claimed relief against the plaintiff.
Whether respondents No. 4 to 8 are necessary parties for effectual and complete adjudication of the suit.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
M/s. Aliji Monoji and Co. Vs. Lalji Mavji and othersRelied on¶21
M/s. Aliji Monoji and Co. Vs. Lalji Mavji and others, AIR 1997 SC 64 · Who else cites this
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Nelson George Wilington @ Downey and another
Jyoti Pattam
Nelson George Downey and others
R. G. Ketkar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
