[ 1 ] IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE WRIT PETITION NO. 3628 OF 2008 MR. SALIM REHMAT ALI KHAN @ KHAN MOHAMMED SALIM ... PETITIONER. VS. 1.ALBERT REMEDIOS 2.MUMBAI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF GREATER MUMBAI. ... RESPONDENTS. SHRI ASLAM KHAN FOR THE PETITIONER. MR. D.J.LULIA FOR THE RESPONDENTS. CORAM CORAM CORAM : A.A.Sayed, J. : A.A.Sayed, J. : A.A.Sayed, J. DATE DATE DATE : June 11, 2008. : June 11, 2008. : June 11, 2008. P.C. 1. This petition is directed against order dated 27.2.2008 passed by the City Civil Court Bombay whereby the chamber summons taken out by the petitioner to be impleaded as party-respondent came to be rejected. 2. The suit which has been filed by the respondent No. 1 is against the Corporation and refers to the notice under Section 351 of the B.M.C. Act in respect of the construction of W.C. which has been allegedly carried out by the respondent No. 1. The learned [ 2 ] Counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner is residing exactly under the premises occupied by the respondent No. 1 and because of the unauthorised construction of W.c. he is directly affected as there is constant leakage in his room due to the construction of the said W.C. 3. I have gone through the impugned order and material on record. The only question for consideration is whether the petitioner is a necessary and proper party to the suit filed by the respondent No. 1. 4. The issue in the suit relates to the action taken by the Corporation of issuing notice under Section 351 of the B.M.C. Act. For effectual disposal of the suit, the impleadment of the petitioner is not necessary. 5. The chamber summons is rightly rejected by the impugned order and the impugned order does not warrant any interference by this court in exercise of its writ jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner is however at liberty to take independent action, if he so desires. 6. Petition is dismissed. ..... [A.A.Sayed, [A.A.Sayed, [A.A.Sayed, J.] J.] J.]