-1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION APPEAL NO. 388 OF 2010 IN CHAMBER SUMMONS NO. 276 OF 2009 IN SUIT NO. 2611 OF 2006 Rajesh Estate & Nirman Ltd. ... Appellant (Orig. Applicant) v/s. Sarvadaman M. Doshi and others ... Respondents (Orig. Plaintiffs, Defendants and Respondent) Mr. Rafiq Dada, Senior Advocate, with Mr. Satish Shah, Mr. A.H. Gokhale and Ms. Gauri Gandhi, instructed by M/s. Tamhane & Co., for the appellants. Mr. M.S. Doctor, instructed by M/s. Bachubhai Munim & Co., for respondent Nos. 1 and 2. Ms. Prachi Mhatre, instructed by M/s. M.S. Bodhanwalla & Co., for respondent No.3. CORAM: P.B. MAJMUDAR & ANOOP V. MOHTA, JJ. DATE: OCTOBER 18, 2010. P.C. This appeal is directed against the order dated 30th April, 2010, passed by the learned single Judge in Chamber Summons No. 276 of 2009 in Suit No. 2611 of 2006. -2- 2. The first respondent is the original plaintiff who has filed the said suit for a declaration and injunction and that the disputed property is the property of the plaintiffs and not of defendant Nos. 2 or 3 and, therefore, the said property cannot be subjected to the decree obtained by Bank of India. It is an admitted fact that in the said suit, the Bank assigned its debts to the present appellant. On the basis of such assignment, an application was filed by the present appellant to join him as a party defendant in the said suit. The learned single Judge rejected the said prayer against which the appellant has filed this appeal. 3. At the time of hearing of this appeal, Mr. Doctor, learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos. 1 and 2, fairly submits that he has no objection if the present appellant is allowed to be joined as a defendant in the said suit by allowing the Chamber Summons. However, according to him, the mortgaged property in question is not assigned by the said assignment and the said point may be kept for consideration. In view thereof, the Chamber Summons is allowed by allowing the appellant to be joined as a co-defendant in the suit and it is not necessary for us to give detailed reasons. It is required to be noted that it is not in dispute that the decree holder,Bank of India, has already assigned its decree in favour of the appellant which is not in dispute. Considering the aforesaid aspect and considering the say of respondent Nos. 1, and 2, this Appeal is allowed by setting aside the order passed by the learned single Judge -3- dated 30th April, 2010 in Chamber Summons No. 276 of 2009 in Suit No. 2611 of 2006. The appellant is permitted to be joined as a co-defendant in the said suit and defend the suit on all available points in accordance with law. It is clarified that all the rights and contentions of the original plaintiff as well as of the respondents are kept open and by allowing the present appellant to be joined as a co-defendant, it should not be presumed that the Court has found that the appellant has also a right in connection with the subject matter of the disputed property or whether the said property was mortgaged with the Bank or not. All these points may be considered by the learned single Judge as per the evidence available on record and we express no opinion except allowing the appellant to defend the suit on all available points in accordance with law. The Appeal is allowed to the aforesaid extent with no order as to costs. P. B. MAJMUDAR, J. ANOOP V. MOHTA, J.