1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION CHAMBER SUMMONS NO.68 OF 2009 IN SUIT NO.2967 OF 2001 Haroon Rashid Nizamuddin Umatiya ...Plaintiff V/s. Jivatlal Purtapshi & Anr. ..Defendants And Pankti Developers Pvt. Ltd., & Ors. ..Respondents ---- Mr.E.K.Sasidharan for the plaintiff. Mr.Vishal Mehta i/by Mehta & Co. for the defendants. Mr.Shailesh Menon i/by Prakash & Co. for the respondents. ---- Coram : R.S.Mohite,J Date : 19th June, 2009. P.C. 1. This is a Chamber summons taken out by the original plaintiff for amendment of the plaint. The plaintiff had filed a suit for specific performance against original defendant nos.1 & 2. By the amendment, he seeks to add defendant nos.2 to 5 on the footing that pending the disposal of the suit, defendant nos.1 & 2 have executed certain conveyances, indentures and other documents in favour of defendant nos.3 2 to 5 as mentioned in Exhibit-N. Two prayers i.e. (ddd) and (dddd) are in the following terms :- (ddd) This Hon’ble Court be pleased to declare that the Defendant Nos.1 and 2 are not entitled to sell, transfer, assign and convey or give development right of the suit property, more particularly described in the Schedule annexed to the plaint and marked Exhibit “A” and/or create any encumbrances thereon in favour of the Defendant Nos.3 to 5. (dddd) This Hon’ble Court be pleased to declare that the purported conveyances, Indentures and other documents executed by the Defendant Nos.1 and 2 in favour of the Defendant Nos.3 to 5 in respect of the different portions of the suit property, more particularly mentioned in Exhibit “N” are illegal, bad in law, unenforceable and not binding upon the suit property and the same be set aside and cancelled. 2. It appears that this Court in this very suit, while disposing off an earlier Chamber summons a single Judge had taken a view that a subsequent vendee was a necessary party in suit for specific performance. This Court had taken a view that to avoid multiplicity of proceedings, he could be joined as defendant with a prayer for reconveyance by him.. The judgment was passed relying upon the observations of the Supreme Court made in Durga Prasad Vs. Lala Deep Chand reported in AIR 1954 SC 75. 3 3. Advocate for the defendants however, relied upon two judgments of the Supreme Court in the case of Anil Kumar Singh Vs. Shivnath Mishra reported in 1995 SCC 147 and in the case of Ramesh Chandra Pattnaik Vs. Pushpendra Kumari & Ors reported in (2008) 10 SCC 708 in which the Apex Court had taken a categorical view that subsequent purchaser of immovable property is not a necessary party in a suit for specific performance. In the present case it is seen that the plaintiff has not sought any relief of reconveyance by the alleged subsequent purchaser. In my view, therefore, the ratio of this Court in the case of Haroon Rashid (supra) would not be applicable. In any case, in view of subsequent judgment of the Supreme Court reported in the case of Ramesh Chandra Pattnaik (supra) the relief as sought, the Chamber summons cannot be granted. There will be liberty for the plaintiff to file a separate suit for quashing and setting aside conveyances in favour of respondent nos.3 to 5. Chamber summons stands dismissed subject to liberty as aforesaid. ( R.S.MOHITE, J. ) 4 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION NOTICE OF MOTION NO.188 OF 2009 IN SUIT NO.2967 OF 2001 Haroon Rashid Nizamuddin Umatiya ..Plaintiff V/s. M/s.Jivatlal Purtapshi & Anr. ..Defendants And M/s.Pankti Developers Pvt.Ltd., & Ors. ..Respondents ---- Mr.E.K.Sasidharan for the plaintiff. Mr.Vishal Mehta i/by Mehta & Co. for defendants. Mr.Shailesh Menon i/by Prakash & Co. for respondentsin Chs.68/09. ---- Coram : R.S.Mohite,J Date : 19.6.2009. PC In view of the observations made in the Chamber summons no.68 of 2009, Motion does not survive. Advocate for the plaintiff seeks leave to withdraw the Motion. Motion dismissed as withdrawn. (R.S.Mohite,J)