IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 5899 OF 2009 Pannalal Shankar Giri ..... ..... ...Petitioner V/s Shivpunjan Panchu Kumbhar & Ors..... ..... .Respondents. Mr.D.D.Singh, Adv. for the petitioner. Mr.Anil Sakhare, Sr. Adv. i/by Ms.Shalini Shankar, Adv. for the Respondent No.1. CORAM: A.P.DESHPANDE, J. 7th November, 2009. PC: The respondent Nos. 1 to 3 herein are the original plaintiffs who instituted a suit challenging the legality and validity of notice issue under section 354A of the Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act by the Corporation. In the said pending suit the present petitioner filed chamber summons with a view to seek his impledment as party- defendant to the suit. Application is purported to have been filed under Order 1 Rule 10 of Code of Civil Procedure. According to the present petitioner, the petitioner was in possession of stable premises admeasuring about 700 sq. ft. The suit premises are stated to have been acquired by father of the petitioner under an agreement in the year 1990. It is further case of the petitioner that in the first week of December, 2007 he had gone to his native place in Uttar Pradesh and when he returned to Mumbai sometime in July, 2008 he came to know that the plaintiff No.1 had demolished the then existing premises and forcibly took possession thereof. After dispossessing the present petitioner the plaintiff No.1 is stated to have constructed ground plus 1 one floor structure in relation to which notice under section 354A of the MMC Act has been issued. In the above set of facts the petitioner contended that he is necessary party or at any rate, property party being impleded as defendant in the suit. The only issues that would arise in the present suit is as to whether the structure erected by the plaintiff is lawful or otherwise and as to whether is the Corporation justified in directing stop work. The grievance of the petitioner in the first place is pertaining to illegal dispossession and in the second place about illegal construction being raised by the plaintiff by setting up a hostile title. The petitioner has no role to play in the proceedings initiated upon filing of the suit questioning legality of notice under section 354A of the Act. The trial court has rightly observed that having regard to the nature of controversy involved in the suit the petitioner is not a necessary party and/or proper party. The petitioner would not be in a position to assist the Court in any manner in adjudication of question pertaining to the legality or otherwise of the notice impugned. I do not find any fault in the impugned order warranting interference, more so, in exercise of writ jurisdiction. It is made clear that it shall be open for the petitioner to take recourse to appropriate proceedings with a view to seek redressal of his grievance. Writ petition thus stands summarily dismissed. 7.11.2009. 2