1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY O. O. C. J. CHAMBER SUMMONS NO.172 OF 2008 IN SUIT NO.2907 OF 2007 M/s. Kotahwala Exports Pvt. Ltd. ..Plaintiff. Vs. Ajay Ramdas Pancholi ..Defendant. and Neeita Bapurao Bhonsle ..Applicant. .... Mr. S.U. Kamdar with Mr. Rohit Shetty for the Plaintiff. Ms. Usha Purohit with Ms. Ramana Bagdadi for the Applicant. Mr. J.M. Panchal – Representative of the Court Receiver present. .... CORAM: DR. D.Y. CHANDRACHUD, J. 14th February, 2008. P.C. : 1. The suit has been instituted for a declaration that the defendant is a trespasser in respect of the suit premises Viz. C-125 admeasuring 1,100 sq. ft. at Mittal Towers, Nariman Point, Mumbai. On 30th October, 2007 a Learned Single Judge of this Court (Mr. Justice A.M. Khanwilkar) appointed the Court Receiver as Receiver of the premises with a direction that the Defendant be appointed as agent on usual terms and conditions. The Learned Single judge observed that prima facie he was inclined to accept 2 the case of the Plaintiff that the document on the basis of which the Defendant seeks a right to remain in possession of the suit premises was a fraudulent document. The Chamber Summons has now been taken out by the Applicant who is the wife of the Defendant for impleadment as a party Defendant. 2. The Chamber Summons is thoroughly misconceived. The Plaintiff seeks a declaration against the Defendant that he is a trespasser in respect of the premises. The Plaintiff as dominus litus is entitled to decide who he seeks relief against. The Applicant to the Chamber Summons cannot compel the Plaintiff to join her as a party to the suit since she is neither a necessary nor a proper party. The attention of the Court has been drawn to the fact that possession was taken over by the Receiver from the Defendant. If the Applicant assets any independent entitlement, it would be open to her to adopt such remedies as are open in law for prosecuting her claim. The Chamber Summons is disposed of.