1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.1972 OF 2009 Shri Abdul Salim Pasha. ..Petitioner. V/s. The Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay & Ors. ..Respondents. Mr.S.R.Singh for petitioner. Mr.M.M.Malvankar for Respondent-BMC. CORAM: A.M.KHANWILKAR,J CORAM: A.M.KHANWILKAR,J CORAM: A.M.KHANWILKAR,J DATE : MARCH 6, 2009. DATE : MARCH 6, 2009. DATE : MARCH 6, 2009. P.C. : P.C. : P.C. : 1. Heard Counsel for the parties. 2. No fault can be found with the view taken by the Court below that third party was the proper party in the suit between the Plaintiff and the Corporation, as the land on which the suit structure was standing, the third party/applicant claimed to be owner thereof. 3. The argument of the Petitioner that the Supreme Court has recognised the right of only the owner of the structure to be made as party to such a suit will have to be stated to be rejected. The observations of the Apex Court in the reported 2 decision was in the context of the application made by the owner of the structure. The Supreme Court decision is not an impediment for the "owner of the land", on which the structure is standing to apply for impleadment as party to the suit between the occupant and Corporation in relation to the unauthorised structure. 4. It was argued on behalf of the Petitioner that the third party was responsible for initiation of action under section 351 of the Act and such party cannot be added as party defendant in the suit filed by the Plaintiff and allowed to take advantage. There is no substance in this argument. The question is whether the owner of the property is entitled to get himself impleaded in the suit filed by the occupants of the structure, which is stated to be unauthorised for the purpose of starting action by the Corporation for preservation of his own property. 5. For the aforesaid reasons, even if the Petitioner is justified in contending that the original order dated 14th December, 2007 is exparte, no fruitful purpose will be served as the ultimate order to be passed would be the same. 6. Hence dismissed. 3 (A.M.KHANWILKAR,J) (A.M.KHANWILKAR,J) (A.M.KHANWILKAR,J)