: 1 : 7856-11-wp=.sxw USJ IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 7856 OF 2011 Smt. Bibijan Abdullah Firoz Khan .. Petitioner v/s. Municipal Corporation of Gr. Bombay & Anr. .. Respondents ......... Mr. A.R. Pande for the petitioner Mrs. Farhana Shah a/w. Mr. Bharat Joshi, Sr. Advocate for respondent no.2 ......... CORAM : R.Y.GANOO, J DATE : 5th OCTOBER,2011. P.C. : 1. The respondent no.2 filed Chamber Summons No.210 of 2010 in L.C. Suit No.377 of 2010 filed by the petitioner. The chamber summons was filed by the respondent no.2 so as to join as party defendant in the suit filed by the petitioner. That chamber summons stands granted by the impugned order dated 20th August, 2011. This order dated 20th August, 2010 is challenged in this petition. : 2 : 7856-11-wp=.sxw 2. I have heard learned advocates appearing on both sides. The respondent no.1 Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai issued notice under Section 354A of the Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, 1888. A copy of which is annexed to the petition. 3. It is the case of the petitioner that the action was initiated by the Corporation on the basis of the complaint filed by respondent no.2. It is also the case of the petitioner that petitioner visited the house of the respondent no.2 and at that time respondent no.2 demanded a sum of Rs.5 lakhs from the petitioner as well as the landlord for the purposes of withdrawal of the alleged complaint filed by him. According to the petitioner, respondent no.2 also warned the petitioner that his wife Mrs. Farhana Shah is a lawyer and they both in collusion with each other are demanding the ransom amount from the petitioner. This averment is found in paragraph 26 of the plaint. The learned Judge of the City Civil Court has granted the said chamber summons after considering the fact that the complaint was lodged at the instance of respondent no.2 and allegations were made against the respondent no.2 and his wife that both of them have demanded monies from the petitioner. : 3 : 7856-11-wp=.sxw 4. Learned advocate for the petitioner placed reliance on the following judgment to contend that in the facts and circumstances of the case, respondent no.1 was not a necessary party as it is the Corporation hasto decide what shall happen with reference to notice under Section 354A issued by the Mumbai Municipal Corporation. Learned advocate for petitioner relied upon judgment in the case of Ramesh Hirachand Kundanmal Vs. Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay & Ors. (1992) 2 Supreme Court Cases, 524 to submit that the respondent no.2 is not a necessary party to the suit. 5. After having perused the record, I an inclined to observe that learned Judge of the City Civil Court was impressed by the fact that the certain allegations are made against respondent no.2 and his wife. It is alleged that respondent no.2 wanted to extract money from the petitioner so as to withdraw the complaint. If respondent no.2 is not allowed to be joined as party defendant, he would not be able to refute these allegations. In my view, the judgment cited above would not be applicable to the facts of this case in the wake of specific averments made against respondent no. 2. In my view, no interference is required in the impugned order and writ petition is required to be dismissed. Hence, following order is passed. : 4 : 7856-11-wp=.sxw ORDER (i) Writ Petition is dismissed at the stage of admission. There shall be no order as to costs. (ii) After the aforesaid order is passed, at the request of learned advocate for the petitioner, operation of order passed below chamber summons No.210 of 2010 is stayed till 17th November, 2011 as the petitioner's advocate has expressed his desire to challenge this order. (R.Y.GANOO, J.)