1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION Amk CHAMBER SUMMONS NO. 1661 OF 2009 IN SUIT NO. 2802 OF 2005 Anil Hukumchand Bhatia .. Plaintiff Yogesh Suresh Bhatia .. Applicant Vs. Ashokkumar Hukumchand Bhatia & Ors. .. Defendants Mr. Ashok Kumar Singh for the Applicant. CORAM : MRS. R. S. DALVI, J. DATE : 6th May, 2010. P.C. 1. The Applicant’s Advocate states that the Chamber Summons is served. The Applicant is Defendant No.6 in the suit. The Plaintiff, Defendant No.1 and Defendant No.6 are the beneficiaries of the suit trust. Defendant Nos.1 to 5 are the trustees of the suit trust. It is the case of Defendant No.6, who has made this application, that the Plaintiff does not prosecute the suit and has instead colluded with Defendant No.1. The Plaintiff has also filed the Consent Terms with Defendant No.1 which Defendant No.6 has sought to have set aside. 2. The interests of the Plaintiff and Defendant No.6 are, therefore, diametrically opposite. Defendant No.6 2 cannot, therefore, be made party Plaintiff. In fact if Defendant No.6 was also Plaintiff No.2, he would have had to be transposed as a Defendant. Two parties with insistent claims cannot be dominus litus in a single lis. Defendant No.6 may take out any application for any relief in respect of suit trust as per law or sue the Plaintiff and the other Defendants separately as per law. 3. The Chamber Summons is dismissed as completely misconceived. (R. S. DALVI, J.)