IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION CHAMBER SUMMONS NO.1893 OF 2008. CHAMBER SUMMONS NO.1893 OF 2008. CHAMBER SUMMONS NO.1893 OF 2008. IN IN IN SUIT NO.396 of 2006. SUIT NO.396 of 2006. SUIT NO.396 of 2006. Adarsh Waterparks & Resorts Pvt. Ltd. ..Plaintiff versus Abdul Rashid Abdul Rehman Yusuf & Others ..Defendants and M/s.Nisha Developers Pvt. Ltd. ..Applicant/ Intervenor CORAM : R.Y.GANOO, J. CORAM : R.Y.GANOO, J. CORAM : R.Y.GANOO, J. DATED : 3rd April, 2009. DATED : 3rd April, 2009. DATED : 3rd April, 2009. P.C. 1. By this Chamber Summons, applicant, namely Nishta Developers Pvt. Ltd. want that they should be joined as defendant. 2. The plaintiffs herein have filed suit for specific performance of Agreement dated 16.8.2005. The present applicant claims that the Agreement to Sale came to be executed in their favour by defendant No.1 being agreement dated 12.12.2006 and according to the applicant, the said agreement is duly registered in accordance with the provisions of Indian Registration Act. -2- 3. Learned Counsel for the applicant contended that they are vitally interested in the suit property in regard to which they have secured rights as per agreement dated 12.12.2006 and therefore they should be joined as party defendant. As against this, learned Counsel appearing for the defendant No.1 as well as the Counsel for the plaintiff contended that the applicants are not required to be joined as party defendant as the suit is purely for specific performance between the plaintiff and defendant. The learned Counsel for defendant No.1 contend that they do not admit the veracity of the document dated 12.12.2006 on which the applicants are placing reliance. The learned Counsel for the defendant No.1 also contended that the present applicants ought to have filed substantive suit to establish their right and they cannot be joined in the present suit. 4. After having considered the rival submission I am inclined to accept the argument advanced by the learned Counsel for the applicant for joining them as party defendant purely on the ground that the present suit filed by the plaintiff against both the defendants relates to the very -3- property which is said to have been agreed to be sold by defendant No.1 in favour of the plaintiff. Even if the defendant No.1 do not admit the said document they cannot stop present applicant being joined as party defendant. It is open for the defendant No.1 to raise appropriate contention at the time of hearing in the suit. 5. In view of the above, the Chamber Summons is made absolute in terms of prayer clause (a). 6. Plaintiff to join present applicant as party defendant and serve upon the present applicant copy of the amended plaint. 7. Amendment shall be carried out on or before 15.4.2009. Service of the plaint after amendment be served upon the advocate for the defendant on or before 20.4.2009. 8. Suit set down for directions on 24.4.2009. (R.Y.Ganoo, J.) (R.Y.Ganoo, J.) (R.Y.Ganoo, J.)