JUDGMENT - V.C. DAGA, J.:---This revision application is directed against the order dated 25th January, 1999 passed by the Judge, City Civil Court, Bombay in Chamber Summons No. 1577 of 1998 in L.C. Suit No. 1549 of 1995 whereby chamber summons was dismissed and prayer to join the applicants as party defendants to the suit was turned down.

FACTS IN BRIEF

2. The facts giving rise to the present revision application, in nut shell, are as under :-

The applicant No. 1 is the managing trustee of applicant No. 2 Trust, duly registered under the Bombay Public Trust Act. Applicant No. 2 is the Owner of 'Sabri Chawl' in which respondent No. 2/original plaintiff is occupying shop No. 10 as sub-tenant of the applicants.

3. The respondent No. 1, is the Bombay Municipal Corporation and, had issued notice dated 2nd January, 1995, under section 351 of the B.M.C. Act to the respondent No. 2 in respect of alleged illegal and unauthorised extension of the shop premises and thereafter passed order dated 1st March, 1996 directing the removal and demolition of the said illegal extension of the shop.

4. The respondent No. 2/plaintiff has challenged the aforesaid notice and order passed in pursuance thereof by respondent No. 1, by filing civil suit, which is pending in City Civil Court, Bombay for hearing and final disposal. The respondent No. 2 has also obtained an injunction restraining the Corporation from executing its order, wherein removal of unauthorised extension of the said shop was directed by the Corporation.

5. The applicants, after having acquired knowledge of the aforesaid suit filed by respondent No. 2, against the Corporation, challenging the notice directing removal of unauthorised extension of shop premises, and filed chamber summons in the above suit for their impleadment as parties to the suit being landlords and owners of the shop premises, which was the subject matter of notice and order of demolition. Necessary affidavit in support of the chamber summons was filed. The respondent No. 2 also filed his reply to the said chamber summons, wherein he admitted that the applicants are the owners of the shop premises, however, opposed the chamber summons on its own merits. The trial Court after hearing both the parties dismissed the chamber summons vide its order dated 25th January, 1999.

6. Aggrieved by the above order inter alia; rejecting applicants chamber summons for impleadment, the applicants invoked revisional jurisdiction of this Court and contended that they have a direct interest in the subject matter of suit and the suit property thus the chamber summons taken out by them ought to have been allowed by the trial Court.

7. In the aforesaid backdrop, the real question that arises for consideration is : whether the owners and landlords of the suit premises are necessary or proper parties to the suit filed against the Corporation restraining it from demolishing part of the demised premises or appurtenant thereto.

8. The law relating to the necessary and proper parties to the proceedings is no longer untouched. The law is settled by series of judgments of this Court and of the Apex Court that where the presence of respondent is necessary for complete and effectual adjudication of the dispute, though no reliefs is claimed, against him, he is a proper party.

9. The necessity to join the applicants as parties to the suit would definitely depend upon the relief that has been claimed. It shall have to be examined whether the reliefs claimed cannot be granted without the intervention and participation of the applicants. If it is so, then they would definitely be called as necessary parties. Reference to sub-rule (2) of Rule 10 of Order 1 of Civil Procedure Code at this juncture, would not be out of place. Under this provision a person, whose presence before the Court is necessary in order to enable the Court effectually and completely to adjudicate and settle all the questions involved in the suit, will be necessary party and will have to be a

Click Here to Read the rest of this document