1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION CHAMBER SUMMONS NO.1287 OF 2010 IN SUIT NO.3209 OF 2009 M/s.Sapphire Land Development Pvt.Ltd. .. Plaintiffs Vs. Maruti Enterprises and Ors. .. Defendants And Jaysukhlal Nagardas Bhuta and Anr. .. Applicants Ms.Laxmi Mordekar i/b M/s.Juris Consillis for the plaintiffs Mr.Karan Bhosale a/w Ms.Devika Nigade i/b M/s.Divya Shah Associates for the applicants Mr.M.B.Jani i/b M/s.M.Jani and Co. for defendant nos.1 to 4 CORAM : S.C.Dharmadhikari, J. DATE : September 20, 2010 P.C. : 1. This is a Chamber Summons by the applicants for joining themselves as party defendants to the suit. 2. The suit is for specific performance of an agreement of sale of an Immovable Property more particularly described in prayer clause (a) of the 2 plaint. It is undisputed before me that the plaintiffs and the defendants are the only parties to the agreement. 3. The applicants seek joinder on the basis that they have ownership rights in the suit property and that the ownership rights are conferred by virtue of certain documents. They had entered into an agreement dated 11.2.93. They are co-owners. One of the co-owners of the property, Smt.Vasantben Bhuta had agreed to sell the property. 4. The applicants and Ramniklal Nagardas Bhuta had entered into an agreement to sell the property to the defendants but that agreement was subject to some conditions more particularly clause 6 of the same. Since the appropriate authority under the Income Tax Act has refused to grant NOC, the sale could not be completed. Therefore, the defendants could not have executed any further agreements nor could have entered upon the suit agreement on the basis of the power of attorney in their favour. 5. The defendants have filed a suit against the applicants being suit no.41 of 2000 which is pending in this court. 6. From the narration of facts and particularly from the affidavit in support of the Chamber Summons, it is apparent that the applicants are claiming that the agreement has been entered into with the defendants prior to the suit agreement and as far as that agreement is concerned, there is a 3 litigation pending in this court. In any event, the applicant being owners of the property they should have joined as party defendants. The law on the point is very clear in that such cases, the applicants cannot be joined as party defendants since they cannot be considered as necessary parties. They are not necessary parties and if they are proper parties they cannot be foisted upon the plaintiffs. 7. In such circumstances, Chamber Summons is misconceived, and the same is dismissed. However, to avoid conflicting decisions and decrees, suit no.3209 of 2009 and 41 of 2000 be tagged together and be tried by the same court. Accordingly, except for consolidating the suits, there will be no order on the Chamber Summons and it is disposed of. ( S.C.Dharmadhikari, J. )