SRJ wp-888-10.sxw 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.888 OF 2010 Anthony D. Sebastian .. Applicant V/s. The Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay & Anr., .. Respondents. Mr.S.R.Singh, for Applicant. Mr.Vikas Singh i/b. Lambay & Co., for Respondent No.2. CORAM : A.S.OKA, J. DATE : 29th MARCH,2010. P.C. : 1] Heard Learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner. The Petitioner is the Original Plaintiff. The Petitioner has filed a suit against First Respondent for challenging the action of demolition under section 351 of the Municipal Corporation Act, 1888. The impugned order has been passed in the Chamber Summons taken out by the Second Respondent. Second Respondent has been ordered to be added as a party Defendant by the impugned order. 2] The learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner submitted that the structure of the Second Respondent is separate in respect of which a similar action has been taken under section 351 of Municipal Corporation Act, SRJ wp-888-10.sxw 2 1888. He submitted that the Second Respondent has not challenged the said action. He submitted that the property has been developed by builder and the Second Respondent is neither necessary nor proper party to the said suit filed by the Petitioner. He submitted that as the Second Respondent has not challenged the action under section 351 of the said Act in respect of his structure, she cannot be permitted to be impleaded as a party in the suit filed by the Petitioner. 3] I have carefully considered the submission. The perusal of the impugned order shows that there is material on record to show that the Petitioner and the Second Respondent are the joint owners of the plot on which the suit structure has been standing. Thus, a prima facie recorded in the impugned order based on the material on record is that the Second Respondent is a joint owner of the plot on which the suit structure is standing. In the circumstances, the Learned Trial Court was right in passing the impugned order as the Second Respondent is a proper party to the suit. 4] It is obvious that nothing stated in the impugned order can be construed as a finding on the issue of title. Observations made in the impugned order are for limited purpose of considering the prayer made by the Second Respondent under sub-rule 2 of Rule 10 of Order I of Civil Procedure Code, 1908. SRJ wp-888-10.sxw 3 5] Subject to what is observed above, no case for interference is made out. Writ Petition is rejected. (A.S.OKA, J. ) SRJ wp-888-10.sxw 4