1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION CHAMBER SUMMONS NO.384 OF 2010 IN SUIT NO.1292 OF 2007 Ajay Jagdish Talreja .. Plaintiff versus Prakash Jagdish Talreja & Anr. .. Defendants And Bandeali Fazli Hussain .. Applicant Mr.P.G.Sawant for the plaintiff. Mr.Omprakash Pandey i/by Pandey & Co for the defendants. Mr.Harindir Toor a/w Omar Khaiyam Shaikh & J.H.Mishra i/by Mishra & Co for the applicant. CORAM : R.S.Mohite, J. DATE : 13th July 2010. P.C.: . This is a chamber summons taken out by a third party-applicant for being added as a party defendant in the suit and for vacating the order passed appointing the Court Receiver on the suit property. It is the case of the applicant that he is the owner of the land upon which the plaintiff and defendants have encroached and created illegal business. On 2 perusal of the plaint it is seen that the suit is filed between brothers for share in certain businesses which are mentioned in Exhibit A to the plaint. Perusal of Exhibit A indicate that as three business are service station, water supply, tandoor and Chinese food corner, the prayers in the plaint are for a share in the income derived from the businesses. The prayer (c) is for a declaration that the plaintiff is having equal right, title and share alongwith defendant Nos.1 and 2 in suit property and businesses as set out in Exhibit A. 2. It is contended on behalf of the applicant that applicant is necessary party since the businesses in respect of which reliefs are sought in the suit are situated upon his land. It is contended that the businesses are illegal and that the plaintiff and defendants are encroachers. 3. In my view, the applicant is not necessary party in this suit. He may have independent right to evict the plaintiff and defendants if he can prove his title to the land and show that the plaintiff and defendants are trespassers on his land, without any right. That proceeding, however, will have to be an independent proceeding before a Court of competent jurisdiction. I am, therefore, not inclined to allow this chamber summons as I find that the presence of the present applicant to decide the disputes 3 as raised in this suit, is not necessary. Hence, chamber summons is dismissed. It is however made clear that this will not preclude the applicant from filing a separate suit to vindicate his rights in respect of land, of which claims to be an owner. If in that suit the plaintiff contends that the land below the structures in which businesses are being carried out by the plaintiff/defendants are a part of this property, in that case he has the leave of this Court to add the Court Receiver as a party in the suit. It is also made clear that mere appointment of the Court Receiver on the suit properties by the order passed in this suit will not come in the way of the applicant from claiming any reliefs in the suit/proceeding which he may choose to file. The advocate for plaintiff and defendants however make statements that they are not making any additional construction apart from the construction business as indicated in Annexure A to the plaint in the present suit are located. The statements are recorded and accepted. It is however clarified that in the suit which may be filed, the contentions of all parties are kept open. (R.S.MOHITE, J)