IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION CHAMBER SUMMONS NO.888 OF 2007 IN SUIT NO.1656 OF 2006 Manilals Investments Pvt. Ltd. ..... Plaintiffs V/s. Tejashree Kirti Ojas Property Development Co. Ltd. and Ors. .... Defendants And Mr.Pranav Bhagat & Anr. .... Proposed Defendants. Mr.Arif Bookwala, Sr.Counsel with Ms.Ankita Singhania i/by M/s.Desai and Diwanji, for the Plaintiffs. Ms.S.Vedpathak i/by Maneksha & Sethna, for defendant Nos.1 to 4. Mr.B.P.Israni, for proposed defendant Nos.5 and 6. CORAM: R.Y.GANOO, J. DATED: 28th JANUARY, 2009. P.C. 1. This Chamber Summons is taken out for amendment of the plaint to bring on record two persons namely Mr.Pranav Bhagat and Mrs.Neeta Bhagat, as defendants, as also to add certain averments to place on record the developments which came to the knowledge of the plaintiffs with regard to the suit property, in particular purchase of the suit property by said Mr.and Mrs.Bhagat. 2. I have heard the learned Senior Counsel for the plaintiffs as well as the learned counsel for the proposed defendants. The facts which 2 are indicated on the basis of the record are that according to the plaintiffs, they entered into a contract with defendant Nos.1 to 4 in the year 2003 and Mr.and Mrs.Bhagat have purchased the suit property in the year 2006. Undoubtedly, the transaction in favour of Mr.and Mrs.Bhagat is prior to the filing of the suit. 3. According to the learned Senior Counsel for the plaintiffs, the present Mr.& Mrs.Bhagat who are shown as proposed defendants in the Chamber Summons are required to be joined as party defendants to effectively prosecute the suit against all persons against whom plaintiffs are interested in getting the specific performance of the agreement. 4. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the proposed defendants submitted that his clients are not at all necessary parties because they have purchased the suit premises by way of a Registered Deed and that they are bonafide purchasers for a valuable consideration and that it is open to the plaintiffs to get the damages against defendant Nos.1 to 4. 5. After having considered the rival contentions advanced on behalf of plaintiffs and proposed defendants, I am not inclined to accept the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the proposed defendants. Since Mr.and Mrs.Bhagat are claiming to be the owners of the suit property as of today and since plaintiffs are seeking specific performance of the 3 agreement between them and defendants No.1 to 4 in regard to the suit property, keeping in view the provisions of Specific Reliefs Act, the presence of Mr.and Mrs.Bhagat is absolutely necessary and that they will have to be joined as necessary parties. In view of the above, the chamber summons is required to be granted. Prayer clause (a) refers to the amendment of the plaint. That will have to be granted. Prayer clause (b) refers to the amendment to the Notice of Motion No.1868 of 2006. As of today, the said Notice of Motion is not pending and hence, there is no need to grant relief in terms of prayer clause (b). Hence, the following order. : O R D E R : 1. The Chamber summons is made absolute in terms of prayer clause (a) only. 2. There shall be no order as to costs. 3. Plaintiffs to amend the plaint in terms of the Schedule on or before 11-02-2009. Serve upon all the defendants including proposed defendants or their Advocate, copy of the amended plaint on or before 24- 02-2009. 4. Suit set down for directions on 02-03-2009. ( R.Y.GANOO, J. )