IN IN IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.4164 OF 2008 WRIT PETITION NO.4164 OF 2008 WRIT PETITION NO.4164 OF 2008 Smt. Kanta Sethi .... Petitioner Vs. Ahteshem Sayed & Ors. .... Respondents Shri A.I. Talegaonkar i/b M/s. Bhai Shankar Kanga & Co. for the Petitioner. Shri H.M. Advani for the Respondent Nos.1 to 5. Respondent No.6 Capt. Arun Sethi in person. ALONG WITH ALONG WITH ALONG WITH WRIT PETITION NO.5070 OF 2008 WRIT PETITION NO.5070 OF 2008 WRIT PETITION NO.5070 OF 2008 Ahtesham A. Sayed & Anr. .... Petitioners Vs. Mrs. Kanta Sethi & Ors. .... Respondents Shri H.M. Advani for the Petitioners. Shri A.I. Talegaonkar i/b M/s. Bhai Shankar Kanga & Co. for the Respondent No.1. Shri Kirit Paleja for the Respondent Nos.3 to 5. Respondent No.2 Capt. Arun Sethi in person. CORAM: CORAM: CORAM: ANOOP V. MOHTA, J. DATED: DATED: DATED: DECEMBER 2, 2008 P.C: P.C: P.C: 1. The petitioners are challenging the order dated 12-2-2008 only with regard to the following observations: "Chamber Summons stands rejected; however the parties are directed that in the event of their entering into compromise, they shall implead the Applicant in this suit first as party Defendant; thereafter only they will submit consent terms, compromise pursis etc. for recording compromise. Chamber Summons stands disposed of accordingly. 2. After considering the rival contentions in the suit for specific performance, the chamber summons filed by the son of defendant No.1 is rejected. The rejection order is not challenged by the said applicant. However, the plaintiff, as well as, defendant No.1-mother have challenged the same. 3. Admittedly, a suit being RAD Suit No.2502 of 2006 is pending whereby the applicant is seeking declaration of his right with regard to the premises in question, the portion of which is the subject-matter of S.C. Suit No.4492 of 2002. Fact remains, therefore, that he has interest in the property. He may not be a necessary party in the present litigation as the plaintiff’s suit is for possession under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act and basically against defendant No.1-mother, that too in part of the portion. However, considering this background and as reflected in the operative part as reproduced above, I see there is no reason to interfere with the impugned order under Article 227 of the Constitution of India being an interlocutory order. There is no perversity either. Both the petitions accordingly are dismissed. (ANOOP V. MOHTA, J.) sjs/D8wpg4164.8 sjs/D8wpg4164.8 sjs/D8wpg4164.8 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPLICATION NO.1664 OF 2008 CIVIL APPLICATION NO.1664 OF 2008 CIVIL APPLICATION NO.1664 OF 2008 IN IN IN WRIT PETITION NO.4164 OF 2008 WRIT PETITION NO.4164 OF 2008 WRIT PETITION NO.4164 OF 2008 Smt. Kanta Sethi .... Applicant/ Petitioner Vs. Ahteshem Sayed & Ors. .... Respondents Shri A.I. Talegaonkar i/b M/s. Bhai Shankar Kanga & Co. for the Applicant/Petitioner. Shri H.M. Advani for the Respondent Nos.1 to 5. Respondent No.6 Capt. Arun Sethi in person. CORAM: CORAM: CORAM: ANOOP V. MOHTA, J. DATED: DATED: DATED: DECEMBER 2, 2008 P.C: P.C: P.C: In view of dismissal of Writ Petition No.4164 of 2008, this application does not survive and stands disposed of accordingly. (ANOOP V. MOHTA, J.) sjs/D8wpg4164.8 sjs/D8wpg4164.8 sjs/D8wpg4164.8