IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.3092 OF 2009 Smt.Haseena Hashmuddin Shaikh ...Petitioner V/s. The Municipal Corporation of Gr. Mumbai & Anr. ...Respondents ...... Mr.Mohit Jadhav for Petitioner. Mr.M.M.Malvankar for Respondent No.1. Mr.B.P.Shukla for Respondent No.2. ...... CORAM: A.M.KHANWILKAR, J. CORAM: A.M.KHANWILKAR, J. CORAM: A.M.KHANWILKAR, J. MARCH 26, 2009. MARCH 26, 2009. MARCH 26, 2009. P.C. 1. Heard Counsel for the parties. 2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith, by consent. Mr.Malvankar waives notice for Respondent No.1. Mr.Shukla waives notice for Respondent No.2. 3. As short question is involved, Petition is taken up for final disposal forthwith, by consent. : 2 : 4. This Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India takes exception to the Judgment and Order passed by the Bombay City Civil Court at Mumbai dated 14th November 2008 allowing the Chamber Summons preferred by the third party bearing No.147 of 2008 in L.C.Suit No.4233 of 2007. The third party by the said Chamber Summons applied for direction against the Plaintiff to implead him as party defendant in the Suit pending before the Trial Court. The Suit questions the validity of notice issued by the Corporation under Section 354A of the Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act. The reason mentioned in the said notice is that the suit structure is unauthorised. According to the third party, the suit structure is situated in the land which is a Hindu Graveyard. 5. The question is: what is the status of the third party and his title with regard to the suit property, assuming that he is right in contending that the disputed premises are situated on land which is earmarked as Hindu graveyard? The : 3 : lower Court was impressed by the stand of the third party that he is a priest visiting the said graveyard. Being a priest cannot be the basis to hold that he is a necessary party to the dispute between the Plaintiff and the Defendant or for that matter, a proper party. Had the third party asserted to be owner of the plot or even for that matter, the occupant of the plot, the question would have been different. As aforesaid, merely because the Applicant/third party is visiting the Hindu graveyard as priest, cannot be the basis to hold that he is necessary or proper party in the pending Suit. At best, the third party/Applicant can appear as witness for the Defendant Corporation to substantiate the position that the suit structure is unauthorised. The documents in possession of the third party/applicant can be produced by the Corporation. 6. Counsel appearing for the Corporation submits that there is no difficulty in examining the third party/applicant as its witness, so that, he would support the claim of the Corporation that the suit structure is unauthorised and also bring : 4 : on record relevant documents as may be available with him to establish the fact that the suit structure is unauthorised. Counsel for the Plaintiff states that the Plaintiff shall have no objection if the third party is to be examined as witness of the Corporation. In view of this arrangement, Counsel for the third party submits that he may assist the Court by appearing as witness of the Defendant Corporation. 7. Accordingly, this Petition is partly allowed by setting aside the impugned Judgment and Order and instead, disposing of the Chamber Summons on the basis of arrangement which is agreed upon by the parties as recorded in this order. Ordered accordingly. A.M.KHANWILKAR, J.