:1: IN IN IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORDINARY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION CHAMBER CHAMBER CHAMBER SUMMONS NO. 1157 OF 2006 SUMMONS NO. 1157 OF 2006 SUMMONS NO. 1157 OF 2006 IN IN IN SUIT SUIT SUIT NO. 4077 OF NO. 4077 OF NO. 4077 OF 1998 1998 1998 Cauvery Software Engineering Systems Ltd. ...Plaintiffs. V/s. Wockhardt Limited & Ors. ... Defendants. And Karnataka State Industrial Investment Development Corporation Ltd. ... Respondents. Mr. B.V. Phadnis for the Plaintiffs. Ms. K. Hiwrale i/b. Harish Joshi & Co. for Defendant No.1. Ms. Preksha Pandya i/b. Madekar & Co. for Defendant No.2. Mr. S. Poria i/b. Hariani & Co. for Defendant No.3. Mr. N.D. Shetty for the Respondents. ..... CORAM CORAM CORAM : S.C. DHARMADHIKARI,J. : S.C. DHARMADHIKARI,J. : S.C. DHARMADHIKARI,J. 22ND 22ND 22ND JANUARY 2009. JANUARY 2009. JANUARY 2009. P.C. P.C. P.C. : : : . The Respondents have moved this Chamber Summons to be joined as a party to the Suit. 2. They claimed that they are necessary parties to the Suit. 3. This is a suit which is filed by the Plaintiffs against the Defendants claiming a decree in the sum of Rs.64,74,00,000/-. It is the case of the Plaintiffs that they are in occupation of the premises more particularly described in the plaint. The premises are located in a building which collapsed on 16th September 1997. The :2: collapse of that wing/building caused loss of life and property and it is the case of the Plaintiffs that the collapse was caused by wilfull acts of the Defendants. 4. It is the Respondents’ claim that it has filed a claim against the Plaintiffs to this Suit being Misc. Petition No.338 of 1998 in the Court of Vth Additional City Civil Judge, Bangalore. That was allowed by an order dated 23rd January 2003. This compels the Respondents - Corporation to move this Chamber Summons. The Plaintiffs were sanctioned a corporate loan. A loan agreement was executed on 17th August 1996 incorporating various terms and conditions. The loan was on hypothecation of certain moveables. When the Respondents came to know about pendency of this Suit, they have moved this Chamber Summons on the ground that the moveables allegedly stored and lost due to collapse of this building include the hypothecated goods/securities of the Respondent - Corporation. It is stated that now the claim of the Corporation is allowed by the Bangalore Court and it will have priority over the claim in the present Suit. In such circumstances, it is a necessary party to the Suit. 5. Admittedly, the Suit is filed by the Plaintiffs seeking to recover damages for collapse of the building/portion thereof which was occupied by them. The loss and damages on account of the collapse are claimed from parties, who have right, title and interest in the :3: immovable property. If certain goods, moveables, etc. are stored therein and which are allegedly hypothecated to the Corporation does not mean that the Corporation has an interest in this litigation. It does not make Corporation a necessary party. If Corporation dues are secured and they rank higher in priority, nothing prevents the Corporation in law from adopting appropriate proceedings against the Plaintiffs. However, from the statements made in the affidavit in support, it is not possible to conclude that the Corporation is a necessary party to this Suit. From a perusal of para 7 of the affidavit in support it is apparent that the Corporation is aware that it cannot be termed as a necessary party. 6. In such circumstances, the Chamber Summons is misconceived and is accordingly dismissed. However, this does not preclude the Corporation from recovering its dues in accordance with law. (S.C. (S.C. (S.C. DHARMADHIKARI,J.) DHARMADHIKARI,J.) DHARMADHIKARI,J.)