1 acd IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION CHAMBER SUMMONS NO. 1554 OF 2009 IN SUIT NO. 2158 OF 2009 Mapkhan Sabit Shah & Ors. ...Plaintiffs. Vs. Puja Prints & Ors. ....Defendants. --- Mr. S.P. Dubey with Mr. S.M. Kazi for the Plaintiffs. Mr.S. M. Khaire, for the Defendants. Mr. Atul Damle, with Mr. Dhanesh Shah, for the Respondents. ---- CORAM : S.C. DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATED : 20th NOVEMBER, 2009 P.C.: 1. The Chamber Summons is filed to implead the respondents as party defendants to the suit. 2. It is contended by the plaintiffs in their affidavit-in-support that the suit is filed for a declaration that the plaintiffs are the owners of the suit property. The said property is more particularly described in prayer clause (a) of the plaint. 3. An application was made by way of a Notice of Motion, for Interim reliefs, the defendants filed a reply and stated that they have sold/transferred the suit property to the respondents. My attention is invited to the affidavit filed by defendant no.2 and partner of defendant no.1 in which it has been stated that the plaintiffs have not joined the present owners viz. Mohammed Anwar 2 Shethwala & Ors. as parties to the suit. It is stated that they are the present owners of the plot of land bearing CTS Nos.403, 417 and 418 admeasuring aggregating to 3184.60 sq.mtrs. out of which the plaintiffs claim the suit property. 4. Upon this affidavit being served, the plaintiffs have moved the present Chamber Summons for amendment of the plaint and to joint respondents as party defendants. 5. The plaint sought to be amended in terms of the schedule. The plaintiffs have pointed in the affidavit-in-support of this Chamber summons that the defendants are alleging that the suit property has already been transferred by them. There is a conveyance which stated to have been executed. The details of the conveyance, parties thereto, and the necessary averments in that behalf to question the rights thereunder are being incorporated so as to enable the court to completely and effectively adjudicate the controversy. 6. On the own showing of the defendants if they are relying upon the conveyance deed so as to urge that the defendants are no longer owners, then, the respondents are the necessary parties. Unless the respondents are present before the court, this court would not be in a position to pass a complete and effective decree. For all these reasons it is urged that the Chamber Summons be allowed. The Chamber summons is opposed only by the respondents. It is pertinent to note that the defendants have filed their affidavit-in-reply to the Chamber Summons and have reiterated their stand, namely, that they conveyed the suit property along with other property to the respondents. 7. The respondents have filed a reply to this Chamber Summons. 8. Mr. Damle, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents 3 urges that in this reply and more particularly in paragraph-3 they have pointed out the position at site. There is a large property and it is undisputed that thereafter the conveyance deed has been executed in respect of plots of land/properties, which upon sub-division have been numbered as CTS 418B admeasuring 3670.80 sq.mtrs. It is this property which is purchased by the respondents. According to the respondents the plaintiffs purport to claim the rights in respect of the property bearing CTS No.418 A admesuring 861.43 sq.mtrs. There are other documents including Deeds of Rectification, orders of the Collector which are relied upon. 9. According to Mr. Damle the respondents are not concerned with the controversy in the suit, and therefore, their joinider as party Defendants is not necessary. 10. It is not possible to accept this contention for more than one reason. Firstly, the defendants specifically take a stand on two occasions that they sold the suit property to the respondents. Secondly, the defendants do not produce the documents of the nature relied upon by the respondents. Thirdly, the tests for joinder of parties and that too necessary parties are well settled to be reiterated. One purpose and object for such joinder is also to avoid multiplicity of proceedings. Merely on the strength of the documents which are relied upon by the respondents, this court cannot presume that the suit property is not subject matter of the conveyance and deeds executed in favour of the respondents. The suit has been filed for a declaration of title and the defendants taking a clear stand of the property having been transferred by them to the respondents, in my view, the Chamber Summons will have to be granted. 4 11. Accordingly, the Chamber Summons is made absolute in terms of prayer clauses (a) and (b). Amendments to be carried out within two weeks from receipt of a copy of this order. 12. Needless to clarify that while granting amendment this court has not expressed anything on the merits of the controversy. It would be open for the respondents, newly added defendants, to raise all contentions as are permissible in law including that the suit is not maintainable. (S.C. DHARMADHIKARI,J.)