1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION NOTICE OF MOTION NO.2604 OF 2006 IN SUIT NO.1425 OF 2006 Falcon Corporate Advisors Pvt.Ltd. ... Plaintiffs v/s. Elpro International Limited & anr. ... Defendants Mr.Melvyn Fernandes i/by Rajani Associates for Plffs. Mr.D.D. Juvekar i/by Khaitan & Co. for Deft.No.1. Mr.Ashish Kamat i/by V.Deshpande & Co. for Deft.No.2. ----- CORAM : SMT.ROSHAN DALVI, J. DATED : 10th JUNE, 2009 P.C.: 1.This Notice of Motion taken out in August 2006 has been served in August 2006 itself. No Affidavit-in-reply is filed. The Notice of Motion is for striking off or deleting the name of Defendant No.2 from the record as not being a proper or necessary party and consequently dismissing the Suit against Defendant No.2. 2.The Suit is filed by a broker. The Plaintiffs were to procure a party for sale of the premises and business of Defendant No.1. Defendant No.1 is stated to have sold one of its divisions being a part of its business along with a part of its premises to Defendant No.2. 2 There has been no contract for sale of the business or premises of Defendant No.1 with the Plaintiffs. Defendant No.1 only allowed the Plaintiffs to negotiate for the disposal of its divisions as stated in the letter of Defendant No.1 dated 24.8.2004. The negotiation period allowed to the Plaintiffs was about 3 months from the date of the letter of offer. The Plaintiffs were to receive 1% commission on the transaction. 3.It is argued that the Plaintiffs failed to obtain any deal within the said period. The Plaintiffs have claimed a money decree for Rs.25,00,000/- as commission of 1% agreed to be paid to the Plaintiffs by Defendant No.1. 4.Defendant No.2 is an independent party and who has, independently of the Plaintiffs negotiation, obtained one of the units of Defendant No.1. The transaction between Defendant No.1 and Defendant No.2 has nothing to do with the claim of the Plaintiffs for a decree towards the Plaintiffs commission. 5.The Advocate on behalf of the Plaintiffs stated that he would require the officer of Defendant No.2 for evidence. That is not the reason to make Defendant No. 2 a party Defendant. Defendant No.2 is neither a proper nor a necessary party to the Suit. The name of Defendant No.2 shall be deleted. The Suit shall proceed 3 only against Defendant No.1. 6.The Notice of Motion is disposed of accordingly. (SMT.ROSHAN DALVI, J.)