: 1 : chs-603-06=.sxw USJ IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION CHAMBER SUMMONS NO. 603 OF 2006 IN SUIT NO. 1319 OF 2006 M/s. OM Enterprises .. Plaintiffs v/s. Alex Simon Mendonza and Anr. .. Defendants And Floyd Alfred D’mello & Ors. .. Respondents ......... Mr. D.H. Mehta a/w. Dipti Nazareth, Usha Gadekar, V.S. Agarwal i/b Divya Shah Associates for the plaintiffs Mr. Arif Bookwala i/b Zohair & Co. for applicant in CHS Mr. V.A. Thorat, R.A. Thorat i/b R.D. Thorat for defendant nos. 1 and 2. ......... CORAM : R.Y.GANOO, J. DATE : 25th JANUARY, 2011 P.C. : 1. This chamber summons is taken out by the persons who are styled as respondents as set out in the cause title. In fact, they should have been styled as applicants. 2. By this chamber summons respondents pray that they be impleaded as party defendants. : 2 : chs-603-06=.sxw 3. I have heard learned Counsel on both sides. The present suit is filed by the plaintiff to seek a declaration that they are the owners in respect of the property more particularly described in prayer clause (a). By prayer clause (b), an order of injunction is sought restraining defendants from interfering with possession of the plaintiffs in regard to the suit property. By prayer clause (c), order is sought directing defendants to remove the cross said to be constructed by them along with AC sheet roof over the said cross on the suit land. An injunction is also sought in terms of prayer clause (d) restraining defendants from conducting assemblies at the cross for prayers on the suit land. The persons i.e. the respondents herein claim that they are attending to the prayers so far as the cross in respect which this suit is filed. The respondent nos. 1 and 2 claim that they are Parishioners and that is how they are interested in attending the prayers at the cross mentioned in this suit. Respondent no.3 is an association of certain persons which is trying for betterment and welfare of persons who are professing Christian religion. Apart from these averments there is nothing to say that respondents have a specific interest in the land or in the cross which is installed at the suit land. Apart from the bare statement as set out in para 5, there is nothing to connect the respondents with the suit land / said cross. If this is the position, I hold that the respondents who : 3 : chs-603-06=.sxw should be styled as applicants have not been able to make a case for the purposes of impleading them as party defendants. 4. In view of this discussion, this chamber summons cannot be granted and is accordingly dismissed. In the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs. (R.Y.GANOO, J.)