[1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION CHAMBER SUMMONS NO.335 OF 2009 IN SUIT NO.684 OF 1971 Thomas More Pereira .... Plaintiff Vs. The Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay & Ors. .... Defendants Sarvasri Shriniwas Deshmukh i/b D.R. Jhuria for the Plaintiff. Sarvasri A.Y. Sakhare, Senior Counsel i/b A.M. Saraogi in support of the Ch/S and for the Defendant Nos.18, 20 & 21. Shri U.J. Makhija for the Defendant Nos.1 to 5. CORAM: CORAM: CORAM: SHRI A.V. NIRGUDE, J. DATED: DATED: DATED: MARCH 16, 2009 P.C: P.C: P.C: 1. Rather belatedly the defendant Nos.18, 20 and 21 have taken out this chamber summons for getting themselves transposed as plaintiffs in this suit. The reason for this action, according to them, is that the present plaintiff had long back agreed to transfer his interest in the suit property to one M/s. Jay Properties Private Limited. These M/s. Jay Properties Private Limited then made an application in this suit for getting themselves added as party-defendants long back and they succeeded in getting themselves impleaded. The defendants through this application are suggesting [2] that since the plaintiff has transferred his rights in the suit property to a third party, he has lost his right to continue as the plaintiff. To this, the plaintiff submitted reply saying that although he had agreed to transfer his right in the suit property to a third party, the defendant No.22, he had later on cancelled the said agreement and due to such cancellation a litigation has erupted and is pending before this Court. 2. I think the chamber summons should fail for the reason that whatever has happened between the plaintiff and the defendant No.22, in my view, has no bearing on the plaintiff’s status. The plaintiff is still entitled to continue with this litigation, which he has carried on after his mother’s death. The present plaintiff as well as the earlier one, his mother, had challenged in this suit a municipal action causing auction sale of certain property belonging to them. During the pendency of this suit, the plaintiff’s interest in the suit property would continue. Besides, the plaintiff had only agreed to transfer his interest in the suit property to a third party which does not mean that the property stood transferred to such party. So, assuming that the agreement of sale still subsists and assuming the plaintiff has intention to transfer his interest to a third party, still the right to continue with this [3] suit would survive. It is not the case of the defendants that the plaintiff has been neglecting his duty as plaintiff to prosecute the suit or that they are better qualified to continue as plaintiffs. The chamber summons, therefore, does not deserve a favourable consideration. The chamber summons stands dismissed. (A.V. Nirgude, J.) ss/M9cs335.9 ss/M9cs335.9 ss/M9cs335.9