1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MUMBAI CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.7062 OF 2008 Sunny Mathew D’Souza .. Petitioner. Vs. The Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai & Ors. .. Respondents. Mr.P.S.Dani i/b Deepak Lulia for the petitioner. Mr.M.M.Malvankar for respondent no.1. Mrs.R.C.Nichani for respondent no.2. Mr.V.V.Khemkar for respondent nos.3 and 4. Coram: D.B. BHOSALE, J. Dated : 27TH JULY, 2009 P.C. . Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. This writ petition impugns an order dated 23.9.2008 passed by the City Civil Court disposing of the chamber summons taken out by the petitioner-plaintiff for adding respondent nos.3 and 4 as party defendants in the suit. In the suit, the petitioner has challenged a notice under section 351 of the Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act. The petitioner claims to be in possession of the offending structure. The suit was filed in 2007. 3. Defendant No.2, i.e. Respondent no.2 herein, claims that 2 he purchased the suit property from the trust in 1979 and since then he has been enjoying the property as its owner. Defendant No.2 has filed a suit for eviction against the petitioner in the Small Causes Court in 1997. Admittedly, respondent nos.3 and 4 never approached the Small Causes Court for adding them as party defendants till this date though they are aware about its pendency. Similarly, there is also an application bearing No.2 of 1978 pending before the Charity Commissioner in which defendant No.2 took out the applications bearing Application No.58 of 2007 in Application No.83 of 2006. In these proceedings, according to the petitioner, respondent no.2 has conceded that the true owner of the property was respondent nos.3 and 4. This admission is not sufficient to hold that even today respondent nos.3 and 4 are the owners of the property, in the face of the assertion of the petitioner that he became owner of the suit property by virtue of the sale deed in 1979. Even in the instant proceedings respondent nos.3 and 4 never approached the city civil court for adding them as party on their own and they appeared in the proceedings only when the petitioner filed an application for adding them as party. It is thus clear that till this date respondent nos.3 and 4 never knocked the doors of court or any other authority including Charity Commissioner to assert their right in the suit property as owner. It is against this backdrop, in my opinion, in the 3 proceedings arising from the notice under section 351 of the Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, respondent nos.3 and 4 are not proper and necessary party. In the circumstances the impugned order does not deserve interference by this court in extremely limited jurisdiction of this court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The writ petition is, accordingly, disposed of. (D. B. Bhosale, J.)