SCA/10098/2008 1/3 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 10098 of 2008 For Approval and Signature: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.R. SHAH ========================================================= 1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ? 3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ? 4 Whether this case involves a substantial question of law as to the interpretation of the constitution of India, 1950 or any order made thereunder ? 5 Whether it is to be circulated to the civil judge? ========================================================= MANSI DEVELOPERS THROUGH ITS ADMINISTRATOR - Petitioner(s) Versus JAMSHED N GUZDAR & 15 - Respondent(s) ========================================================= Appearance : MR DIPAK R DAVE for Petitioner(s) : 1, MRS KETTY A MEHTA for Respondent(s) : 1 - 2,4 - 7. UNSERVED-EXPIRED (N) for Respondent(s) : 3, 11, M/S THAKKAR ASSOC. for Respondent(s) : 8, NOTICE SERVED BY DS for Respondent(s) : 9 - 10,12 - 15. - for Respondent(s) : 16, ========================================================= CORAM : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.R. SHAH Date : 17/12/2008 ORAL JUDGMENT 1. Heard Mr.Dipak Dave, learned Advocate for the petitioner and Mrs.Ketty Metha, learned Advocate for respondent Nos.1,2,4 to 7. SCA/10098/2008 2/3 JUDGMENT 2. By of this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner - 3rd party has prayed for an appropriate Writ, direction and/or order quashing and setting aside impugned order dated 12.03.2008 passed by the learned 6th Additional Senior Civil Judge, Bhavnagar below Exh.5 in Regular Civil Suit No.366 of 1999 by which the learned trial Court has dismissed the said application refusing to permit the petitioner to be joined as party defendant in the said Suit. 3. Mr.Dipak Dave, learned Advocate for the petitioner has submitted that as development agreement in favour of the petitioner dated 18.08.1991 is under challenge and even there is specific reference to development agreement in favour of the petitioner, the petitioner is not only necessary and proper party but directly affected party, therefore, the learned trial Court ought to have permitted the petitioner to be joined as party defendant in the said suit. 4. Mrs.Mehta, learned Advocate appearing for the original plaintiffs has submitted that dispute in the suit is not only with respect to agreement in favour of the petitioner but with respect to all the development agreements and it is the case on behalf of the plaintiffs that development agreement in favour of the petitioner is ineffective. 5. In view of above, when development agreement SCA/10098/2008 3/3 JUDGMENT in favour of the petitioner is also under challenge along with other development agreement, if any, in that case the petitioner is not only necessary and proper party but is also directly affected party. Under the circumstances, the learned trial Court ought to have allowed the application Exh.15 by permitting the petitioner to be joined as party defendant in the said suit. Under the circumstances, impugned order dated 12.03.2008 passed by the learned 6th Additional Senior Civil Judge, Bhavnagar below Exh.5 in Regular Civil Suit No.366 of 1999 deserves to be quashed and set aside. 6. For the reasons stated above, the petition succeeds. Impugned order dated 12.03.2008 passed by the learned 6th Additional Senior Civil Judge, Bhavnagar below Exh.5 in Regular Civil Suit No.366 of 1999 is hereby quashed and set aside. Application Exh.15 is hereby allowed. The petitioner is permitted to be joined as party defendant in the Regular Civil Suit No.366 of 1999. Rule is made absolute accordingly. [M.R.Shah,J.] satish