1 Ash IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.889 OF 2010 Mr. Abbas Ali M.K. Shah. .. Petitioner. Vs Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay & Anr. .. Respondents -- Shri L.K. Tripathi for the Petitioner. -- CORAM : A.S.OKA, J. DATE : 26TH MARCH, 2010 P.C: . Heard learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner. The Petitioner is the original Plaintiff who has taken an exception to the judgment and order passed by the Trial Court on 2nd December, 2009 by which a Chamber Summons taken out by a third party for impleadment has been made absolute. The chamber summons has been made absolute on the ground that a larger portion of the suit property has been purchased by the third party ( Respondent No.2 herein ). The suit has been filed by the Plaintiff- Petitioner against the 1st Respondent for challenging an action of demolition in the form of notice under Section 354 of the Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, 1888. 2. The learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner submitted 2 that the 2nd Respondent relied upon a Sale Deed of which inspection was not given to the Petitioner before the chamber summons was heard. He submitted that a copy of the Sale Deed relied upon by the 2nd Respondent was not produced before the Trial Court. Placing reliance upon certain documents tendered across the bar, he submitted that the suit structure does not form a part of the property bearing Survey No.60, Hissa No.1 Part and 2, C.T.S.No. 584, 584/1 to 21 at Village Kanjur Marg. He submitted that in the circumstances, the 2nd Respondent cannot claim to be the owner of the property. He lastly submitted that the Petitioner may be granted opportunity to produce the documents to show that the property purchased by the 2nd Respondent has nothing to do with the suit structure. 3. I have given careful consideration to the submissions. In Paragraph 2(a) of the affidavit in support of the chamber summons, description of the property purchased by the 2nd Respondent has been described as bearing Survey No.60, Hissa No.1 Part and 2, C.T.S.No. 584, 584/1 to 21 at Village Kanjur Marg, Taluka Kurla, Mumbai Subarban District. In clause (b) of Paragraph 2 of the said affidavit in support, it is alleged that the Deed of Conveyance by which the property has been purchased by the 2nd Respondent has been duly registered. While dealing with the clause (a) of Paragraph 2 of the said affidavit in support of the chamber summons, in the reply filed by the Petitioner, in paragraph 5 thereof, he has merely denied that the 2nd Respondent has purchased the property bearing Survey No.60, Hissa No.1 Part and 2, C.T.S.No. 584, 3 584/1 to 21 at Village Kanjur Marg. There is no specific contention raised in the reply that the suit structure is not standing on the aforesaid property. Even in the paragraph 9 thereof, there is a vague denial that the 2nd Respondent has become the lawful owner in respect of the larger property. There is no specific contention raised denying that the suit structure does not form part of the said larger property. Moreover, in Paragraph 11 of the impugned order, the Trial Judge has noted that a copy of the Sale Deed has been produced on record. 4. On the basis of the Sale Deed, relying upon the decision of the Apex Court in the case of M/s. Aliji Monoji & Company V/s. Lalji Mavji and others [ AIR 1997 SC 64 ], the Trial Court held that the 2nd Respondent being the owner of the larger property of which the suit structure forms a part is a necessary party. There is no error in the said view taken. It is obvious that the observations made by the Trial Court regarding title of the 2nd Respondent are for the limited purpose of deciding the prayer of impleadment and the said observations cannot be construed as any adjudication made as regards the title of the 2nd Respondent relating to the suit structure. 5. No case for interference is made out. Subject to what is observed above, the Writ Petition is rejected. (A.S.OKA, J)