: 1 : chs-1542-10=.sxw USJ IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION CHAMBER SUMMONS NO. 1542 OF 2010 IN SUIT NO. 1968 OF 2005 Parmanand T. Manwani & Anr. .. Plaintiffs v/s. Madan Devkishandas Bhatia & Anr. .. Defendants And Wall Mart Trading Pvt. Ltd. .. Applicants ......... Mr. Chirag Balsara with Mihir Mody, Luann C., Gourav Pandhaham i/by K. Ahar & Co. for the plaintiffs Mr. D.D. Madon, Sr. Counsel with S.S. Purohit, I.J. Nankani i/by M/s. Nankani & Associates for applicants in CHS Mr. Atul Rajadhyaksha i/by Kedar Wagle for defendant no.1. Mr. Yogesh D. Bandal for defendant no.3. ......... CORAM : R.Y.GANOO, J. DATE : 8th DECEMBER, 2010 P.C. : 1. Defendant no.1 had entered into an agreement with plaintiffs on 26th July, 2002 for Sale of the suit property. That did not materialize and, therefore, this suit has been filed in the year 2005. It is to be noted that according to the present applicants on or about 3rd February 2004, present plaintiffs in expectation of transaction getting fulfilled, : 2 : chs-1542-10=.sxw entered into Memorandum of Understanding. According to the applicants, the applicants were granted development rights. It is also the case of the applicants that applicants were interested in developing the property and that is why they had provided finance to plaintiffs for the purposes of complying with the order of the Court in Notice of Motion No.2059 of 2005 in Suit No.1968 of 2005 dated 22nd July, 2005. 2. According to applicants they are necessary parties for the purposes of resolving the dispute between the plaintiffs and the defendants that is how, prayer clause (a) is made. By prayer clause (b), applicants want that monies which have been deposited by the plaintiffs pursuant to the aforesaid order dated 22nd July, 2005 were provided by the applicants and therefore those monies be permitted to withdraw by the applicants as the order dated 22nd July, 2005, was in a way set aside with reference to the order directing plaintiffs to deposit the monies. According to applicants the monies which were deposited in the Court were that of the applicants and therefore in equity, they have a right to get back the monies and the plaintiffs cannot have the advantage of the said monies. After having heard learned Counsels on both sides, I am inclined to dismiss this chamber summons. : 3 : chs-1542-10=.sxw 2. So far as prayer clause (a) is concerned, in a suit between an intending purchaser and intending vendor, if an agreement is entered into by intending purchaser in regard to the property which the intending purchaser expects to purchase, such a person cannot be treated as necessary party. Hence, prayer clause (a) has to be rejected. So far as the question of return of monies is concerned, the amount has been deposited by the plaintiffs. Where from plaintiffs collected the amount is not relevant. Even if plaintiffs admit in the Court or outside the Court that the monies so deposited were received from the applicants, the monies have been deposited in the name of the plaintiffs and therefore, plaintiffs can get back that money if any order passed in the suit. The applicants cannot claim that amount. Apart from that there is no specific order passed by the learned Division Bench directing the office to return the monies deposited by the plaintiffs or permitting the plaintiffs to get back the monies. In view of the above, relief in terms of prayer clause (b) can also be granted. Accordingly, chamber summons is required to be disposed of by passing following order. ORDER (i) Chamber Summons is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. : 4 : chs-1542-10=.sxw (ii) This suit is ordered to be expedited by the Supreme Court. Suit stands adjourned to 17th January, 2011 for issues. (R.Y.GANOO, J.)