1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION CHAMBER SUMMONS NO.1294 OF 2008 IN SUIT NO.1968 OF 2005 Parmanand T. Manwani & anr. ..Plaintiffs V/s. Madan Devkisan Bhatia & ors .. Defendants And M/s.Faldayni Realtors Pvt. Ltd. ..Applicant Mr.Ditendra Mishra, Advocate, for the applicant Mr.M.P.Vashi, Advocate, for the defendant No.1 Mr.Sanjay Jain i/b.M/s.Lalit Jain & Co., Advocate, for the plaintiffs Mr.S.C.Naidu i/b.M/s.C.R.Naidu & Co., Advocate, for the defendant No.3 CORAM : R.M.SAVANT, J. DATE : 21ST OCTOBER, 2008 P.C. . By the above application, the applicant prays for being joined as a party defendant to the above suit. The said claim is made 2 on the basis of the Memorandum of Understanding dated 23rd April, 2006, allegedly executed by the defendant No.1, one Madan Devkisan Bhatia in his favour. The impleadment is sought on the basis that the applicant is a a necessary party to the said suit in view of the said Memorandum of Understanding dated 23rd April, 2006. 2. The above suit has been filed by the plaintiffs seeking specific performance of an agreement in respect of the assignment of lease hold rights, held by the defendant No.1. The lease hold rights have been granted to the defendant No.1 by the defendant No.2. In the said suit, an injunction is already operating against the defendant No.1 which has been granted by this Court on 22nd July, 2005 in the above suit. The applicant as indicated above, seeks an impleadment on the basis of the said Memorandum of Understanding dated 23rd April, 2006; which also according to the applicant the same lease hold rights. The relevant clauses of the said Memorandum of Understanding have been re-produced in the affidavit-in-support of the Chamber Summons. The covenants of the said Memorandum of Understanding contain therein stipulations as regards the payments 3 made by the applicant as well as the payments yet to be made by the applicant. 3. On behalf of the defendant No.1, an affidavit-in-reply has been filed opposing the Chamber Summons. The defendant No.1 denies the said transaction. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. Mr.Sanjay Jain, the learned counsel for the plaintiffs principally submits that there is no privity of contract between the applicant and the defendant No.1 as can be evidenced from the documents annexed by the applicant himself to the affidavit-in-support of the Chamber Summons. The learned counsel drew my attention to the Memorandum of Understanding dated 23rd April, 2006, which ex-facie discloses that the said Memorandum of Understanding is between Mr. Mohanlal D. Bhatia, Smt.Veena Vijay Bhatia, Mr.Kishan D. Bhatia and Mr.Prakash Assoo Bhatia alias Chetnani and the applicant and the defendant No.1 is not at all concerned. The receipts for payments made annexed to the said affidavit-in-support by the applicant also ex-facie 4 discloses that the said payments have been made to the said four persons and not the defendant No.1 Mr.Madan Devkisan Bhatia. It is, therefore, the submission of Mr.Sanjay Jain that the applicant has no locus standi in so far as the subject matter of the above suit is concerned, which is between the plaintiffs and said Madan Devkisan Bhatia. The learned counsel further submitted that the applicant has made false statements on oath knowing them to be false, relying upon the said aforesaid documents; the learned counsel submitted that an action against the applicant under the provisions of Section 191 of the Indian Penal Code for purgery is therefore required to be taken. The learned counsel further submitted that the applicant though, knowing that there is an injunction operating in favour of the plaintiffs since 22nd July, 2005, has inspite of the knowledge of the said injunction ventured to enter into the said Memorandum of Understanding in respect of the assignment of the lease hold rights and therefore, the said conduct of the applicant is also contemputous. 4. The learned counsel for the defendant No.1 Mr.M.P.Vashi submitted that in so far as the above Chamber Summons is 5 concerned, he supports the submissions advanced on behalf of the plaintiffs. The learned counsel Shri Vashi relied upon the Judgment of the Apex Court reported in 2008(4) AIR Bom R 230 in the matter of Bharat Karsondas Thakkar Versus M/s.Kiran Construction Co. & ors in support of his submission that a stranger or a third party to the agreement who had acquired an interest in the same property is neither a necessary or a proper party to the suit. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the defendant No.3, also supported the submissions made by the learned counsel for the plaintiffs. 5. Having considered the rival contentions, in my view, considering the documents on record there is considerable merit in the submission of Mr.Sanjay Jain the learned counsel for the plaintiffs that in so far as the present suit directed against said Mr.Madan Devkisan Bhatia is concerned, the applicant has no locus standi and is not a necessary party or a proper party for being impleaded in the said suit. The documents on which reliance is placed by the applicant ex-facie discloses that there is no privity of contract between the applicant and the defendant No.1. The defendant No.1 is, therefore, 6 neither a necessary or a proper party to the said suit. The Chamber Summons is, therefore, rejected. In my view, the matter would not rest here. In the teeth of the said Memorandum of Understanding to which admittedly, the defendant No.1 is not a party and in the teeth of the receipts evidencing the alleged payments made by the applicant to the said four persons; the averments made in the affidavit-in- support of the Chamber Summons especially in paragraph Nos.3 to 8 wherein a categorical statement is made in respect of the Memorandum of Understanding entered into by the applicant with the defendant No.1 and on the basis of which impleadment is sought. In my view, Show Cause Notice is required to be issued to the deponent Akshay Jain and to the Directors of the applicant as to why action for purgery as contemplated under Section 191 of the Indian Penal Code should not be taken against them. The office is, therefore, directed to issue Show Cause Notice to the applicant, returnable within a period of 12 weeks from date. 6. In so far as the allegations of the contempt of the Order of this Court are concerned, it would be open for the plaintiffs to adopt 7 appropriate proceedings in that regard and this Court does not deem it fit to go into the said allegations of contempt in the present proceedings. (R.M.SAVANT, J.)