Asn 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICUATURE AT MUMBAI ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION CHAMBER SUMMONS NO.1361 OF 2007 IN SUIT NO.2050 OF 2007 Daryani Construction and anr. ..Plaintiffs. Vs. J.P.Chaturvedi and ors. ..Defendants. Mr.C.D.Patel i/by Apex Consillis for the plaintiff. Mr.A.G.Damle for the defendant Nos. 2 to 4. CORAM : R.S.MOHITE, J DATED : JUNE 22, 2010 P. C.: 1 This chamber summons is taken out by the original plaintiffs for adding four respondents as additional defendants in the said suit and for making the averments concerning the defendants who are sought to be added as respondents. Suit of the plaintiffs is for specific performance in respect of the agreement dated 31.7.1998 executed by defendant No.1 and the predecessor in title of defendant Nos. 2 to 12 in favour of the plaintiffs. The predecessor in title of the defendants 2 to 12 was Mr. D.C.Mitra. The suit agreement indicates that there was an agreement of sale executed by one Madhukar Joglekar in favour of Mr. D.C.Mitra and that agreement for sale was the basis of D.C.Mitra executing the suit agreement. In the amendment, it is also contended that Mr. Madhukar Asn 2 Joglekar has also entered into an agreement of sale with Mr. D.C.Mitra on 16.5.1980 which was confirmed by the defendants by executing general power of attorney as set out in the amendment. For the plaintiffs to succeed in a suit for specific performance, they will have to show that the suit agreement was valid and that Mr. D.C. Mitra had a right to execute the same. On being asked the Advocate for the respondents states that he is not in a position to make a statement that his client confirms the right of Mr. D.C. Mitra to execute the suit agreement. It is contended that in such a situation the respondents may alienate the property causing prejudice to the plaintiff. 2 It is seen that the trial in the said suit is at preliminary stage. Issues have not been yet framed. Taking into account that the trial is not started and also taking into account the averments of the proposed amendment, in my view, respondents are necessary parties for deciding the suit between the plaintiff and the defendants. Chamber summons is therefore, allowed in terms of prayer clause (a) and (b). Amendment to be carried out within a period of 4-week from today. Chamber summons is disposed off. (R.S.MOHITE,J.)