Case Note & Summary
The petitioners, claiming to be owners of a gala in Dhiraj Pen Compound, Andheri, filed a suit challenging a demolition notice dated 17 September 2008 issued by the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai under Section 351 of the Bombay Municipal Corporation Act, 1888, concerning an alleged illegal mezzanine floor. The 2nd respondents filed Chamber Summons No.329 of 2009 seeking impleadment as party defendants, asserting that they had purchased the plot and sheds by registered conveyance dated 31 October 2002 and were the landlords and owners of the property. They argued that the demolition order would materially affect their rights. The trial court allowed the impleadment. The petitioners challenged this order by way of a writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution, relying on Ramesh Hirachand Kundanmal v. Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay and P.M.A. Hakeem v. U.P. Co-operative Spinning Mills Federation Ltd., contending that the 2nd respondents had no direct interest in the demolition action. The High Court dismissed the petition, holding that the 2nd respondents, as owners and landlords, had a direct and substantial interest in the suit property and were necessary parties for the complete and effective adjudication of the dispute. The court found no error in the trial court's order and upheld the impleadment.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure Code, 1908 - Order 1 Rule 10 - Impleadment of Party - Necessary and Proper Party - The court considered whether a person claiming to be the landlord and owner of the property is entitled to be impleaded as a party defendant in a suit challenging a demolition notice issued by the Municipal Corporation under Section 351 of the Bombay Municipal Corporation Act, 1888. The court held that the 2nd respondent, being the owner and landlord of the suit property, has a direct and substantial interest in the subject matter of the suit, as the demolition order would materially affect their right, title, and interest. The court directed the petitioners to implead the 2nd respondents as party defendants. (Paras 1-5)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the 2nd respondent, claiming to be the landlord and owner of the suit property, is a necessary and proper party to the suit challenging the demolition notice issued by the Municipal Corporation.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the writ petition, upholding the trial court's order allowing the impleadment of the 2nd respondents as party defendants.
Law Points
- Order 1 Rule 10 CPC
- Necessary and proper party
- Direct substantial interest
- Impleadment
Case Details
2010 LawText (BOM) (02) 39
Writ Petition No.8429 of 2009
Mr. Vinay Hegde for the petitioners; Mr. Virag Tulzapurkar, Sr. Counsel a/w Mr. Sagar Divekar and Mr. Farar Alam Sagar i/by Wadia Ghandy & Co for the respondent No.2.
Mr. Ranjitsingh Linga & Anr.
The Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai & Anr.
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Civil writ petition challenging an order allowing impleadment of a party in a suit challenging a demolition notice.
Remedy Sought
The petitioners sought to set aside the order dated 26 August 2009 allowing Chamber Summons No.329 of 2009, which directed impleadment of the 2nd respondents as party defendants.
Filing Reason
The petitioners challenged the trial court's order allowing the 2nd respondents to be impleaded as defendants in the suit, arguing that they had no direct interest in the demolition action.
Previous Decisions
The trial court (Chamber Summons No.329 of 2009 in L.C.Suit No.1483 of 2009) allowed the impleadment of the 2nd respondents as party defendants by order dated 26 August 2009.
Issues
Whether the 2nd respondent, claiming to be the landlord and owner of the suit property, is a necessary and proper party to the suit challenging the demolition notice issued by the Municipal Corporation.
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioners argued that the 2nd respondents have no direct or indirect interest in the demolition action, relying on Ramesh Hirachand Kundanmal v. Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay and P.M.A. Hakeem v. U.P. Co-operative Spinning Mills Federation Ltd.
2nd respondents contended that they are the owners and landlords of the property and the demolition order would materially affect their right, title, and interest, making them necessary parties.
Ratio Decidendi
A person claiming to be the owner and landlord of the suit property has a direct and substantial interest in the subject matter of the suit challenging a demolition notice, as the demolition order would materially affect their right, title, and interest. Such a person is a necessary and proper party under Order 1 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, and is entitled to be impleaded.
Judgment Excerpts
By this writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners who are the original plaintiffs have taken an exception to the judgment and order dated 26th August 2009 passed in Chamber Summons No.329 of 2009 in L.C.Suit No.1483 of 2009.
The 2nd respondents filed Chamber Summons No.329 of 2009 praying that they may be impleaded as party defendants.
The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners placed reliance on a decision of the Apex Court in the case of Ramesh Hirachand Kundanmal Vs. Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay and Ors [1992(2) Supreme Court Cases 524].
He submitted that the 2nd respondents are not directly or indirectly interested in the action of demolition which is the subject matter of the suit.
The learned counsel appearing for the 2nd respondents submitted that the 2nd respondents are the owners and landlords of the suit property and the demolition order would materially affect their right, title and interest.
Procedural History
The petitioners filed L.C.Suit No.1483 of 2009 challenging a demolition notice dated 17 September 2008 issued by the Municipal Corporation. The 2nd respondents filed Chamber Summons No.329 of 2009 seeking impleadment, which was allowed by the trial court on 26 August 2009. The petitioners challenged this order by filing Writ Petition No.8429 of 2009 under Article 227 of the Constitution of India before the Bombay High Court, which was dismissed on 8 February 2010.
Acts & Sections
- Bombay Municipal Corporation Act, 1888: Section 351
- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: Order 1 Rule 10
