1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION CHAMBER SUMMONS NO. 1781 OF 2008 IN SUIT NO. 5172 OF 2000 Umesh J. Patel & Ors. ....Plaintiffs Versus Harishankar R. Mhatre & Ors. ....Defendants and Sandipa M. Hanumane & Ors. ....Applicants Mr. B. P. Pandey, Advocate for the Applicants. Mr. J. S. Chandnani i/b. Mr. H. V. Kode, Advocate for the Plaintiffs. Mr. H. Toor i/b. M/s. S. K. Legal Associates, Advocate for Defendant No.10. CORAM : R. V. MORE, J. DATE : 22nd JANUARY, 2010. P. C. : Heard Mr. Pandey, learned Counsel for the Applicants, Mr. Chandnani learned Counsel for Plaintiffs and Mr. Toor, learned Counsel for Defendant No.10. . 2. The above chamber summons is taken out by the Applicants for direction to the Plaintiffs to implead them as a party Defendants in the suit. The Plaintiffs have filed the above suit against Defendant Nos. 1 to 4 for declaration that the Agreement for Sale dated 29th April, 1971 and Conveyance Deed dated 2 27th August, 1987 are legal, valid, subsisting and binding on Defendant No.1. Declaration that Deed of Conveyance between Defendant No.1 and Defendant No.10 effected on 28th September, 1999 is null, void, illegal and inoperative is also claimed. Rest of the Defendants have been impleaded as they claim some rights in the suit property. 3. The Applicants claim impleadment in the above suit on the ground that Defendant No.1 executed sale deed in the year 1975 in favour of their predecessor in title i.e. their mother and thereafter the said deed was confirmed by deed of confirmation which was executed on 18th April, 2006. The learned Counsel for the Applicants on the basis of the above documents submitted that the Applicants have vital interest in the subject matter of the suit and therefore, they are necessary parties in the suit. Mr. Toor, learned Counsel for Defendant No.10 as well Mr.Chandnani, learned Counsel for the Plaintiffs opposed the chamber summons. They submitted that the Applicants are not necessary parties to the suit. They further submitted that the Applicants initially took out chamber summons no. 847 of 2008 for leave to file separate suit, which chamber summons was allowed by this Court and inspite of grant of leave by this Court, they did not file any suit and now wants to intervene in the present suit. It was also submitted that the Applicants have not come with clean hands. 4. Having considered the submissions of the learned Counsel for the respective parties, I find merit in the chamber summons. The Applicants claim 3 ownership of the suit property by virtue of sale deed of 1975 in favour of their predecessor in title and latter confirmation deed by the Defendant No.1 in their favour in the month of April, 2006. True that there are some doubts regarding execution of these documents. However, the veracity of the documents cannot be gone into at this stage. The Applicants are always entitled to prove the said documents by leading evidence on record. The Plaintiff and the Defendant No.10 are also at liberty to point out that the said documents are forged and bogus. This can be done at the stage of trial but the same cannot be the ground to refuse the prayer claimed in the chamber summons. 5. The objection of Mr. Toor, learned Counsel, that the Applicants already filed chamber summons no. 847 of 2008 and obtained leave to file separate suit and therefore, the present chamber summons is not maintainable is also without any merit. Mr. Toor, learned Counsel, cannot point out any provisions which prohibits the Applicants from intervening in the present suit on the ground that remedy of separate and independent suit is available to them. The Applicants are always at liberty to prosecute the suit or intervene in the present suit. Even the Applicants can simultaneously proceed to file the separate suit and application for intervention in the present suit. 6. In my view the Applicants claim vital interest in the subject matter of the suit. The Apex Court recently in the case of Sumatibai & Ors. V/s Paras Finance Co. (2007) 10 SCC 82 held that persons having fair semblance of title or interest is entitled to be intervened in the proceedings. No prejudice will be 4 caused to the Plaintiffs and the Defendants, if the the chamber summons is allowed. In the light of the above facts, the chamber summons is allowed in terms of prayer clause (a). 7. Necessary amendments be carried out by the Plaintiff within a period of three weeks from today and amended copy of the plaint be served on the Defendants within further period of two weeks. 8. It is made clear that the above observations are made only for the purpose of disposal of the present chamber summons and the contentions of the Plaintiffs and Defendant No.10 are expressly kept open. Sd/- (R. V. MORE, J.)