dgm gm gm IN IN IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL CIVIL CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT WRIT WRIT PETITION NO.3030 OF 2007 PETITION NO.3030 OF 2007 PETITION NO.3030 OF 2007 Mr.Ramakant T. Nikshe & anr. ...Petitioners Vs. Mumbai Municipal Corpn. & ors. ...Respondents. Mr. S.M.Kamble i/by Mr.S.Y.Katkade for the Petitioner. Mr.Dhananjay C. Pathak for the Respondents. CORAM CORAM CORAM : ANOOP V.MOHTA, J. : ANOOP V.MOHTA, J. : ANOOP V.MOHTA, J. DATED DATED DATED : 3rd October, 2008. : 3rd October, 2008. : 3rd October, 2008. P.C. P.C. P.C. The challenge in the present petition is to the order regarding adding the society as party for the following reasons: "3. The applicant is the society and the suit premises of the plaintiff are situated on the land belonging to the society. It appears that the plaintiff has filed the suit challenging the notice under Section 35(1) of M.R.T.P. Act in respect of unauthorized construction of 4 shops to the existing residential bungalow of the plaintiff, which is contrary to purposes ( 2 ) for which the land is allotted to the society. The facts shows that the society is necessary and property party since the plaintiff is occupying the bungalow for which the applicant is society and any unauthorised construction work, if carried out by the plaintiff, the applicant society is the first to notice such construction and, therefore, the applicant is proper and necessary party to be impleaded as party defendants in the suit. Hence the order." So far as this part is concerned, I see no case is made out to interfere with the same. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioners basically contended that the chamber summons no.747/2005 for legal heirs of plaintiff were not brought on record and therefore the order itself is nullity. The fact remains that the legal heirs are already brought in the main suit. It is recorded in the order sheet that the Advocate for the plaintiff sought time to file reply on behalf of legal heirs to the chamber summons no.747/2005 in question. The Court has recorded that the petitioners are the heirs of the plaintiff and ( 3 ) entitled to file reply to this application. Even considering the averments made and reasoning so given, I see no reason to interfere with the said order. The petition is dismissed accordingly. ( ANOOP V. MOHTA, J.) ANOOP V. MOHTA, J.) ANOOP V. MOHTA, J.)