1 pps IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION Chamber Summons No.276 of 2009 . in Suit No. 2611 of 2006 Sarvadaman M. Doshi & Others .. Plaintiff v/s. Bank of India & Others ..Defendants And Virendra Maneklal Vora ..Respondent And Rajesh Estate and Nirman Limited ..Applicants Mr.M.s.Doctor , Mr.N.Dave i/b. B. Munim & Co for the Plaintiffs. Mr. Satish Shah, Vaibhav Sugdhare i/b. Tamhane & Co. for the Applicants in the Chamber Summons Mrs. Prachi Raj Mhatre i/b. M.S.Bodhanwala & Co, for the Defendant No. 1. CORAM : R.Y.GANOO, J. DATED : 30th April, 2010 P.C. : 1. The Bank of India had instituted a proceeding in the Debt Recovery 2 Tribunal, more particularly set out in para 3 of the affidavit in support of this Chamber Summons for recovery of dues of Mansukh Industries and Hasmukh H. Doshi, Defendant Nos.2 and 3 herein. The order in the nature of decree came to be passed by the learned Member of the Debt Recovery Tribunal. Bank of India, defendant No.1 herein thereafter attached the property which is the subject matter of the present suit, on the ground that the said property was owned by defendant Nos.2 and 3. After the attachment was levied, plaintiffs took a stand that the suit property is owned by the plaintiffs and not by the defendant nos.2 and 3. They therefore instituted this suit basically to have that attachment raised by making appropriate prayers. 2. It is noticed that the plaintiffs filed an application before the Debt Recovery Tribunal, for raising the attachment. Said application was dismissed. The plaintiffs have thereafter filed this suit. Today, whether this suit is rightly instituted or otherwise, is not the question to be decided by this Court. 3. It is noticed that the Bank of India, who were the decree holders 3 before the Debt Recovery Tribunal assigned their rights in favour of respondents in this Chamber Summons, who in turn assigned his right in favour of the present applicants. It is under these circumstances, the present applicants have taken out this Chamber Summons and have prayed that the applicants who are presently the assignees of the decree of the Debt Recovery Tribunal be joined as defendants. It is also prayed that Virendra Vora is assignee to the rights of Defendant No.1 Bank of India, who are shown as respondents be joined as defendants. 4. Parties herein have completed the pleadings . I have heard learned Counsel on both sides. At the outset it is required to be mentioned that the Defendant No.1 Bank of India have filed the written statement challenging the claim of the plaintiffs. 5. The plaintiffs have approached this Court with a case that the property covered in the present suit is owned by them and therefore it cannot be a subject matter of attachment as regards decree passed against defendant Nos.2 and 3. Hence the question to be determined by this Court is whether the property which is covered in the present 4 suit is owned by the plaintiffs or defendant nos.2 and 3. 6. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the applicants relied upon the provisions of Order XXII Rule 10 of C.P.C. as also Section 146 of CPC, and submitted that on account of assignment held by the present applicants through respondent Applicants as well as respondent are necessary party so that they can object to the claim of plaintiffs. According to Counsel for the Applicants substantial amount has been paid by the assignee for taking over the rights of Bank of India as judgment creditor and if that is so, they would suffer loss if they are not joined. Learned Counsel on behalf of the applicant relied upon the judgment in the case of Amin Kumar Shaw & Another vs. Farida Khatoon & Another reported in AIR 2005 SC 2209. He had relied upon this judgment to press his submissions based on Order XXII Rule 10 of CPC. 7. In order to decide the Chamber Summons, I had asked learned Counsel for the Applicants to point out to the Court as to in what way applicants will be able to dislodge the claim of the plaintiffs. It was submitted by Counsel for the applicants that if applicants are kept out 5 of the litigation, they would suffer loss. It appears that Bank of India proceeded to attach the property on the inspection of the necessary revenue record i.e. 7 x 12 extract, or city survey record and other documentary evidence and came to the conclusion that the property involved in the present suit is owned by the defendant Nos.2 and 3. Plaintiffs have now placed before the Court the documents on the basis of which it is claimed that the properties are not of defendant Nos.1 and 2. Hence in the present suit the real dispute is whether the properties covered in the suit are owned by the defendant nos.1 and 2 or by the Plaintiffs. After having considered this point, I am inclined to observe that the present applicants as well as respondents would not be able to assist the court in deciding this dispute. Attachment appears to have been levied on the basis of claim of Bank of India that the property is owned by defendant Nos.1 and 2. After having considered the point in question, it appears that the present applicants and respondent are interested in the outcome of the suit, but they would not be able to assist the Court in deciding the question before the Court, namely who is owner of the property. It is in these circumstances, I am inclined to observe that the applicants as well as the respondent need not be joined. 6 8. The arguments advanced by learned Counsel for the applicant based on the judgment in the case of Amit Shaw and others would not be applicable to the facts of this case for the reasons mentioned aforesaid. 9. In view of this, Chamber Summons is required to be dismissed. Hence following order is passed. ORDER Chamber Summons is dismissed with no order as to costs. [R.Y.GANOO, J.]