1 mpt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT WRIT WRIT PETITION NO. 2743 of 2008 PETITION NO. 2743 of 2008 PETITION NO. 2743 of 2008 WITH CIVIL CIVIL CIVIL APPLICATION NO.1180 of 2008 APPLICATION NO.1180 of 2008 APPLICATION NO.1180 of 2008 IN IN IN WRIT WRIT WRIT PETITION NO. 2743 of 2008 PETITION NO. 2743 of 2008 PETITION NO. 2743 of 2008 Leelaben Babubhai Pradhan @ Leela Vest Dhodi .. Petitioner versus Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai & ors. .. Respondents ... Mr.J.G. Damani for the petitioner. Mr.A.Y. Sakhare, Sr.Counsel & Dipti Mehta i/b A.R. Shaikh for respondent no.6. Mr.J.G. Reddy i/b M/s.Utangale & Co. for respondent no.4. CORAM : A.M.KHANWILKAR, J DATED : 5th September 2008 P.C.: 1. Heard counsel for the parties. 2 2. According to the petitioner, when the respondent no.6 filed chamber summons no.35 of 2008 before the trial court, the name of the applicant was mentioned as "Shri Siddhi Vinayak Co-operative Housing Society Ltd". However, later on by way of chamber summons no.68 of 2008, the respondent no.6 asserted that the correct name of the applicant should be read as "Shri Siddhi Vinayak Co-operative (Kandivli) S.R.A. Housing Society Ltd. 3. According to the petitioner, there is no contemporaneous record to substantiate the position that the correct name of respondent no.6 is as indicated in chamber summons no.68 of 2008. To buttress this submission, petitioner contends that the suit property has not been declared as slum area at all and in any case, consent of the petitioner was not obtained to enable the respondent no.6 society to take over the development activity of the suit plot. 4. In so far as latter submission of the petitioner viz. that the suit land is not declared as slum area at all or that the petitioner was not consulted before permitting the respondent no.6 to develop the suit property is a matter which may be 3 enquired into at the appropriate stage. All questions in that behalf are left open. 5. The issue that needs to be considered in this petition, is whether the respondent no.6 has been rightly directed to be made party-defendant to the proceedings before the City Civil Court. In view of the case made out in the plaint itself, the court below was justified in taking the view that to avoid multiplicity of proceedings, it would be appropriate to permit the respondent no.6 - third party to be impleaded as party defendant in the pending suit. 6. The question whether the respondent no.6 has substantiated the fact that the name of respondent no.6 society, as sated in chamber summons no.68 of 2008, can be accepted on the basis of the Registration Certificate issued by the Co-operative Registrar in exercise of powers under the provisions of Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act 1960 will have to be finally considered at the appropriate stage. For the time being we will have to proceed on the basis of the Society Registration certificate which mentions the name of the society as "Shri Siddhi Vinayak (Kandivli) S.R.A. Housing Society Ltd". The address of the society is also notified in the said registration certificate. Therefore, there 4 can be no difficulty in accepting the claim of respondent no.6 that its correct name is as indicated in the chamber summons no.68 of 2008 which is consistent with the registration certificate issued by the Registrar Co-operative Society. Thus understood, there is no merit in this petition. 7. No interference in exercise of writ jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is warranted against discretionary order passed by the court below. All other questions referred to above will have to be decided at the appropriate stage by the lower court on merits in accordance with law. 8. In the circumstances, this petition is dismissed. 9. In view of this civil application no.1180 of 2008 also stands disposed of. (A.M.KHANWILKAR, J)