1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.1467 OF 2008 Dinesh Hingoo .. Petitioner Versus Municipal Corporation of Gr.Mumbai & Ors. .. Respondents Mr.J.J.Shah for petitioner Mr.Manojkumar Upadhyay for respondent Nos.2 and 3. CORAM : S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATE : 5th March 2008 P.C. . Heard both sides. Perused the petition and annexures thereto, including the order passed 2 on the chamber summons. 2. After perusal of the chamber summons, the relief prayed therein, affidavits filed in support and reply, I am satisfied that the learned Judge was in complete error in allowing the chamber summons. Request of the plaintiff is to protect his structure. The request is made in the context of notice issued by respondent No.1 Corporation. The Corporation is issuing this notice allegedly in pursuance of the powers conferred under the Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, 1888. The lis is between the petitioner plaintiff and the Corporation and does not involve interest of the nature contemplated under Order 1 Rule 1 of C.P.C. More particularly, sub-rule 2 thereof soas to implead them as parties to the suit. Interest, if any, of the adjoining members of a Cooperative Housing Society in a plot reserved for public use allegedly, can by no means be asserted by joining 3 them in the suit which is filed. That is admittedly a dispute on the basis that the property is a private property and the structure belongs to the petitioner plaintiff. Therefore, the impugned order suffers from total non application of mind and is vitiated by an error apparent on the face of record. It requires interference by this Court under section 227 of the Constitution of India and is accordingly interfered with and the order on chamber summons is quashed and set aside. Petition succeeds. The same is made absolute in terms of prayer clause (a). However, this does not prevent respondent Nos. 2 and 3 from pursuing their own remedies which are available in law, insofar as the right that is claimed by them. It would be in such proceedings that the controversy as to whether the plot is reserved for public use or not will be gone into. 3. At this stage, if there is any such usage 4 the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 need not have any apprehension, because the public body like respondent No.1 will definitely point out any such reservation or designation. If the public body has failed in its duty and obligation, then, respondent Nos. 2 and 3 can go ahead and move against the public body for appropriate relief. All such remedies and contentions therein of all parties are kept open. (S.C.Dharmadhikari, J)