-: 1 :- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION CHAMBER SUMMONS 947 NO. 2008. IN SUIT NO. 1423 OF 2008. Sharan Khanna & Anr. ..Plaintiffs. Versus UTI Infrastructure & Services Ltd. & Ors. ..Defendants. AND Charu Kishor Mehta. ..Applicant. Mr. Ashish Kamath i/b M/s. RMG Law Associates for the Plaintiffs. Mr. J. P. Sen a/w Ms. Sapna Raichure i/b M/s. T. N. Tripathi & Co., for the Applicant. Mr. J. S. Saluja, AGP for the defendant no.2. Mr. Neville Lashkari a/w Ms. Pooja K. and Mr. Akshay Jadhav i/b M/s. Vigil Juris for the defendant nos. 1 & 3. Coram : R. V. MORE, J. Date : January 11, 2010. P. C. : 1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and the plaintiffs. The present Chamber Summons is taken out for direction to the plaintiffs to join the applicant as a party - defendant no.4 in the Suit No. 1423 of 2008. The said suit is filed for specific performance of an agreement dated 22nd March 2005 against the defendants. 2. It is the case of the applicant that the applicant is one of the trustees of the Lilawati Trust and the total consideration of the aforesaid agreement was paid by the plaintiff to the defendants from the funds of the Lilawati Trust. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the funds of the -: 2 :- Lilawati Trust are being siphoned off in collusion with the other trustees and therefore in order to protect the property of the trust, applicant is a proper party. 3. The plaintiff by filing reply to the present chamber summons denied the allegation that the funds of the Lilawati trust are utilised in paying the consideration to the defendants. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant invited my attention to the fact that the Lilawati Trust has also filed another suit being Suit No. 274 of 2009 in this Court against the plaintiffs and the defendants for specific performance of the agreement entered into in April 2005, whereunder the present plaintiffs have assigned all their rights under the suit agreement to Mr. Vijay Mehta and 10 other persons. 5. The present suit is for the specific performance of the agreement dated 22nd March 2005. The Applicant is not a party to this agreement. Therefore, in my view the presence of the present applicant is not required to decide the controversy in the aforesaid suit. So far as the contention of the applicant regarding the utilisation of the funds by the plaintiff is concerned, the same is disputed by the plaintiff and hence cannot be gone into in the present suit. As stated above, already the Trust has filed a separate suit against the plaintiff and the defendants. In the facts and circumstances, I do not find any necessity to allow the applicant to be joined as a party - defendant in the aforesaid suit. 6. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the applicant also submitted -: 3 :- that the suit filed by the Trust, being Suit No. 274 of 2009, may be clubbed and heard alongwith the present suit, being Suit No. 1423 of 2008. This prayer is opposed by the learned counsel for the plaintiffs. 7. It is the contention of the applicant that the subject matter of the Suit No. 274 of 2009 is an agreement between the plaintiffs in the present suit and the Lilawati Trust. Under the said agreement, the plaintiffs in the present suit agreed to assign their rights in respect of the subject matter of the present suit to the Lilawati Trust. In these circumstances, I feel it appropriate to club and decide both the suits together. In any case, the plaintiff in the present suit will not be prejudiced if both these suits are clubbed together. In these facts, I dispose of the above Chamber Summons with the following order. : O R D E R : (1) Chamber Summons is rejected. (2) The present Suit No. 1423 of 2008 and Suit No. 274 of 2009 are directed to be clubbed and decided together. (R.V. MORE, J.)