IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPEAL FROM ORDER NO.842 OF 2008 IN CHAMBER SUMMONS NO.982 OF 2007 IN L.C. SUIT NO.2530 OF 2007 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.1013 OF 2008 Shri Barikrkao Changdeo Kamble .... Appellant Vs. Municipal Corporation of Greater.... Respondents Bombay & Ors. Mr. H.S. Anand i/by Sarita Donde for Appellant. Mr. Mohan Dhamal Advocate for respondent no.2. Coram : SMT. R.P. SONDURBALDOTA,J Date : 21th August, 2008 P.C. 1. This Appeal from Order is preferred to challenge the order dated 27th February 2008, by which a third party Chamber Summons came to be allowed by the Bombay City Civil Court and the appellant was arrayed as defendant to the suit. The appellant is the original plaintiff and respondent no.2 is applicant to the Chamber Summons. She had filed Suit bearing No.3562/1997 claiming that she had been occupying the suit premises for her residence. That suit was decreed and on the strength of the decree passed in the suit she has been allotted permanent alternate accommodation. Thereafter the suit premises came to be partly demolished. The appellant claims to be the occupant of the suit premises since prior to 1995. Therefore the City Civil Court has found that respondent No.2 is a necessary party to the proceedings, since the outcome in this suit is bound to affect both the appellant as well as respondent no.2. The appellant has not been able to show any prejudice that can be caused to him by the persons of respondent no. 2 in the proceedings. Therefore, the learned trial Court has rightly made appreciation and passed the impugned order. There is no need to interfere with the order. Hence, Appeal from Order is dismissed in lemine. 2. In view of the disposal of Appeal from Order, Civil Application does not survive. Hence, it is dismissed accordingly. (SMT. R.P. SONDURBALDOTA,J)