1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.1810 OF 2010 Mr.Allwyin Narohnha .. Petitioner versus The Municipal Corporation of Gr.Mumbai & Anr. .. Respondents Mr.R.D.Mishra for the petitioner. Mr.K.P.Reshma Ravi i/by Mr.K.P.Ravi for respondent No.2. CORAM : A.S.OKA, J. DATE : 15th March 2010. P.C.: . Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. By the impugned order, the trial Court has allowed chamber summons filed by the 2nd respondent by which the prayer was made for impleading the 2nd respondent as a party defendant to the suit filed by the petitioner. 2. The suit has been filed by the petitioner for challenging order of demolition passed under section 351 of the Bombay Municipal Corporation Act, 1888. The 2nd respondent is claiming to be the co-owner of the property on which offending structure is situated. The 2nd respondent has been permitted to be impleaded as a party to the suit being a proper party. 3. The grievance of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner is that earlier chamber summons taken out by the 2nd respondent for the same 2 relief was withdrawn on the ground that the 1st respondent-Corporation was taking action. His submission is that the second chamber summons for the same relief was not maintainable. 4. I have considered the submissions. The 2nd respondent is claiming to be a co-owner of the property on which suit structure is situated. In view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Aliji Momonji & Co Vs. Lalji Mavji & Ors [(1996) 5 Supreme Court Cases 379], the 2nd respondent will be a proper party to the suit. The earlier chamber summons taken out by the 2nd respondent has not been dismissed on merits. The earlier chamber summons was withdrawn when it was pointed out that the 1st respondent- Corporation was taking necessary action. 5. As the 2nd respondent appears to be a proper party to the suit, no interference can be made in writ jurisdiction with the impugned order. The writ petition is rejected. However, all contentions of the petitioner on merits are kept open. Time to carry out amendment is extended by a period of four weeks from today. (A.S.OKA,J)