jpc wp10162-11.sxw 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 10162 OF 2011 M/s S. M. Construction ... Petitioner Versus Chembur Suprabhat Cooperative Housing Society and others ... Respondents Mr. V. P. Sawant a/w Mr. Rajesh Singh for the petitioner Mr. S. A. Savant a/w Mr. H. V. Kode i/by Mr. Abhishek P. Deshpande for respondent nos. 1 and 2 Ms. P. S. Cardozo, AGP for respondent no.6 CORAM: R. M. SAVANT, J. DATED : 24th November, 2011 P.C. : 1. The above petition takes exception to the order dated 19th November, 2011 by which order the application/Chamber Summons for impleading the Mumbai Municipal Corporation and the State of Maharashtra in Short Cause Suit No. 2346 of 2011 came to be rejected. The rejection, looking to the affidavit filed in support of the Chamber Summons in which the ground for impleading the Mumbai Municipal Corporation and the State of Maharashtra is concerned, in my view, cannot be faulted with. There is absolutely no material on record to justify the impleadment of the MMC and the State of Maharashtra in a suit which is filed for injunction simplicitor by the plaintiffs against the Society and its office bearers. jpc wp10162-11.sxw 2 2. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/plaintiff states that after the said Chamber Summons was filed, the defendants to the said suit have filed their affidavit in reply to the Notice of Motion filed by the Petitioner and have stated certain facts which, according to him, would justify the impleadment of the Mumbai Municipal Corporation in the pending suit. If that be so, the petitioner/plaintiff would be entitled to file a fresh application, relying upon the said facts and also any further facts that become available to the petitioner/ plaintiff, in so far as the MMC is concerned. However, in so far as the State of Maharashtra is concerned, the petitioner/plaintiff seems to have some grievance against the Police in respect of the inaction shown by the Police in respect of a complaint which the petitioner wanted to lodge against the defendants in connection with the redevelopment of the property in question. 3. In my view considering the relief which is sought in the suit which is only an injunction simplicitor in respect of the redevelopment of the premises, the State of Maharashtra would have no role to play. If the petitioner/plaintiff is aggrieved by the inaction etc. it is for the petitioner if so advised to proceed against the concerned officers of the State in accordance with law. In so far as MMC is concerned, as mentioned hereinabove, the petitioner may file a fresh application. In the event the petitioner/plaintiff files fresh Chamber Summons, based on the material which has become available to it by virtue of the affidavit in reply filed by the defendants or any other further new material becoming available to it, for jpc wp10162-11.sxw 3 impleadment of the Mumbai Municipal Corporation, the petitioner/ plaintiff would be at liberty to apply to the trial court for the Chamber Summons to be heard on expeditious basis. 4. With the aforesaid observation, writ petition is dismissed. (R. M. SAVANT, J.)