:1: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 7108 OF 2008 Akruti Nirman Ltd. ..Petitioner (Org.Plaintiff) vs. Dinesh Balsara and ors. ..Respondents (Org. Defendants) And Shri Anil Gulabdas Shah ..Respondent (Org.Applicant) Mr. Anil R. Mishra for petitioner. Mr. Dinesh Balsara - respondent no.1, Ms. Alka Balsara - respondent no.2, Mr. Nitesh J. Mistry - respondent no.3, Mr. Pravin Trivedi - respondent no.5 and Mr. Anil G. Shah - respondent no. 8 all present in person. Mr. A.K. Nandanwar for BMC. CORAM: DR. D.Y. CHANDRACHUD,J. CORAM: DR. D.Y. CHANDRACHUD,J. CORAM: DR. D.Y. CHANDRACHUD,J. Date : December 03, 2008. Date : December 03, 2008. Date : December 03, 2008. P.C.: P.C.: P.C.: 1. Rule, by consent of the learned counsel and the parties appearing in person made returnable forthwith. Counsel appearing for the respondent-BMC and respondents appearing in person waive service. :2: With the consent of the learned counsel and the parties appearing in person and at their request, the matter is taken up for hearing and final disposal. 2. The petition arises out of an order passed by the City Civil Court on 30/8/2008 allowing a Chamber Summons (Chamber Summons No. 833 of 2006) taken out by the 8th respondent for being impleaded as a defendant to the suit. The suit has been instituted by the petitioner to these proceedings against respondent nos.1 to 7. In the suit an injunction has been sought against respondent no.6 from interfering with the work of construction on CTS No. 427/2 of village Gundavali, Taluka Andheri, Mumbai Suburban District. A mandatory order has been sought against the Municipal Corporation for the demolition of a certain structure, which is alleged to be unauthorised. During the pendency of the suit, two Chamber Summons were taken out. The first Chamber Summons (Chamber Summons No. 1264 of 2006) was taken out by the 3rd defendant for impleading the Slum Rehabilitation Authority, the Court Receiver and the 8th respondent, Anil G. Shah, as defendants to the :3: suit. The affidavit in support of the Chamber Summons has been affirmed by Anil G. Shah acting as Constituted Attorney for the 3rd defendant. The second Chamber Summons (Chamber Summons No. 833 of 2006) was taken out by the 8th respondent (Anil G. Shah) for impleading himself as a defendant to the suit. 3. Chamber Summons No. 1264 of 2006 was dismissed by the Trial Judge on 30/8/2008. By another order also of the same date, Chamber Summons No. 833 of 2006 came to be allowed. The net result is that though the application for impleading Anil G. Shah was rejected in so far as Chamber Summons No. 1264 of 2006 is concerned, the application for impleading the aforesaid person came to be allowed in terms of Chamber Summons No. 833 of 2006. Both the orders have been passed by the learned Trial Judge on the same date. The contention before the court is that these orders are inconsistent and, therefore, cannot be maintained. It has also been urged that the 8th respondent has no connection with CTS No. 427/2 and that the affidavit in support of the Chamber Summons :4: taken out by the 8th respondent shows that he has an interest in CTS Nos. 449 and 429 respectively. It is not necessary for this court to express any view on this aspect of the matter. 4. It appears to the court that the two orders passed by the Trial Judge on 30/8/2008 are inconsistent in as much as the same prayer for impleading the 8th respondent has been rejected in one Chamber Summons (Chamber Summons No. 1264 of 2006) and has been allowed in another Chamber Summons (Chamber Summons No. 833 of 2006). In this view of the matter, it would be proper and appropriate that the learned Trial Judge be directed to reconsider both the Chamber Summons afresh. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the plaintiff and all the defendants, who are present before the court in person, are agreeable to an order being passed by this court directing the learned Trial Judge to re-hear both the Chamber Summons afresh and to pass orders thereon after hearing the parties. :5: 5. Accordingly, the petition is disposed of by consent by directing the learned Trial Judge to reconsider Chamber Summons No. 1264 of 2006 and Chamber Summons No. 833 of 2006 afresh and to pass orders thereon afresh after hearing the parties. In order to facilitate this exercise, by consent both the orders dated 30/8/2008 passed on the aforesaid Chamber Summons are set aside. There shall be no order as to costs. 6. It is necessary to clarify that all the rights and contentions of the parties are kept open, including on the question as to whether the applicants have any interest in the subject matter of the proceedings. (Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud,J.) (Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud,J.) (Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud,J.)