2026 INSC 8 REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NOs. OF 2026 (Arising out of SLP (C) Nos. 6024-6025 OF 2022)

NAK ENGINEERING COMPANY PVT. LTD. …APPELLANT(S)

VERSUS TARUN KESHRICHAND SHAH AND ORS. …RESPONDENT(S)

J U D G M E N T

PANKAJ MITHAL, J. 1. Leave granted.

2. We have heard Shri Chander Uday Singh, senior counsel assisted by Shri Amarjit Singh Bedi, Advocate-on-Record for the appellant-NAK Engineering Company Pvt. Ltd., Hereinafter referred to as ‘appellant’ and Dr. Abhinav Chandrachud, learned counsel assisted by Shri Surjendu Sankar Das, Advocate-on-Record for the respondent No.1- Tarun Keshrichand Shah, Digitally signed by Signature Not Verified LOKESH ARORA Date: 2026.01.05 Reason:

2 Hereinafter referred to as ‘respondent No.1’

3. Respondent No.2- Priyalata Keshrichand Shah, Hereinafter referred to as ‘respondent No.2’ is reported to be dead and her interest is represented by respondent No.1.

4. Respondent No.3- M/s Kishore Engineering Company, Hereinafter referred to as ‘respondent No.3’ has not appeared. It had not even appeared in the Trial Court or the High Court. It has not even filed any written statement, despite service of notice.

5. In a Suit No.6117 of 2007 filed by respondent No.1 and respondent No.2 against respondent No.3, a Notice of Motion No.1346 of 2018 was moved to add the appellant as the party defendant to participate and contest the aforesaid suit. Earlier, a Notice of Motion No. 1925 of 2017 was also moved by the appellant seeking to set aside the order to proceed in the said suit ex-parte. Both the said motions were allowed by the court of first instance vide a common Order dated 05.10.2018. However, the said order was set aside by the High Court by the impugned judgment and

order dated 21.02.2022 in exercise of its power under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

6. Under challenge in these appeals is thus the above judgment and order of the High Court dated 21.02.2022 setting aside the order of the court of first instance permitting impleadment of the appellant as one of the defendants to the suit meaning thereby that the motion of addition of the appellant as one of the defendants to the suit stands rejected.

7. One Keshrichand Shah was the original owner of the commercial premises admeasuring 1700 sq. feet existing on the third floor of the Churchgate House, Mumbai. He was the sole proprietor of M/s Union Commercial Corporation. The aforesaid Keshrichand Shah through its proprietorship firm M/s Union Commercial Corporation let out an area of 525 square feet of the above premises having five cabins to one M/s Modern Products Pvt. Ltd. The said M/s Modern Products Pvt. Ltd. licensed or sublet the same to the respondent no.3. In addition to the rent of Rs.400/- per month payable to M/s Modern Products Pvt. Ltd., the respondent No.3 also used to pay service charges at the rate of Rs.2,100/- per month for the use of furniture and fixtures therein to the owner, Keshrichand Shah. On the death of Kesharichand Shah, the said service charges were realized by his heirs, i.e., respondent nos.1 and 2.

8. The respondent Nos.1 and 2 instituted a Suit No.3319 of

2007 on the original civil side of the Bombay High Court but on account of pecuniary jurisdiction it was later transferred to the Bombay City Civil Court and re-

numbered as Suit No.6117 of 2017.

9. The aforesaid suit was instituted by respondent Nos.1 and

2 against respondent No.3 for the recovery of service charges at the rate of Rs.2,100/- per month, amounting to Rs.75,600/- for the period November 2004 to October

2007.

10. In the aforesaid suit, notice was served upon sole defendant i.e., respondent no.3 but no one appeared on its behalf and filed any written statement. Thus, after closing the evidence on 11.02.2014, the court vide order dated

12.11.2014 proceeded ex-parte in the matter.

11. It was much thereafter on 02.04.2018 that the appellant filed an application for being impleaded as the defendant in this