1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.4539 OF 2009 Smt. Jaibunissa Anwar Choudhary ..Petitioner. V/s. Ahmedullah Fakrullah Khan & Anr. ..Respondents. Mr. M.P. Jadhav for petitioner. None for respondent. CORAM : J.P.DEVADHAR, J. DATED : 15TH JULY, 2009. P.C. :- 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. This petition is filed to challenge the order dated 3rd March, 2009 passed by the City Civil Court Judge, Mumbai in Chamber Summons No.516 of 2008 taken out by the petitioner in L.C. Suit No.698 of 2008. 2. In the above Suit filed by the respondent No.1 against the respondent No.2 Municipal Corporation of Greater, Mumbai, the petitioner had taken out a Chamber Summons for impleading him as a party defendant to the Suit. The said chamber summons was dismissed by the impugned order dated 3rd March, 2009 mainly on the ground that there is no prima facie material to show interest or right of the petitioner in respect of the suit 2 property. It is further held that the petitioner is not necessary party for adjudication of the dispute between the parties to the suit. Challenging the said order the present writ petition is filed. 3. It is contended by the counsel for the petitioner that the notice issued by the Corporation (see page 60) which is impugned in the suit is not only addressed to the respondent No.1 but also addressed to the petitioner. Moreover, the premises of the petitioner being adjacent to the premises belonging to the respondent No.1, it is contended that the petitioner is a necessary party to the suit. Relying upon the decision of this Court in the case of Chandrakant Dharma Bhonu V/s. Pandurang Ramchandra Dandekar & Anr. reported in A.I.R. 2004 Bombay 374, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the chamber summons taken out by the petitioner deserves to be allowed. 4. There is no merit in the above contention. Admittedly, the petitioner had filed a suit bearing No.4405 of 1995 against the respondents for demolishing the suit structure which is dismissed for default on 23/7/2001. The petitioner has not taken any steps to restore that suit. In the notice challenged in suit No.698 of 2008, although the name of the petitioner is mentioned, the said notice is neither served upon the petitioner nor directed against the premises occupied by the petitioner. Moreover, the petitioner has failed to establish a prima facie case before the trial Court regarding his right or interest in the property which is subject matter of suit No.698 of 2008. In these circumstances, no fault can be found in the impugned order in dismissing the chamber summons. 3 5. Reliance placed on the decision of this Court in the case of Chandrakant Dharma Bhonu (supra) is misplaced. In that case, the case of the petitioner therein was that the Corporation was colluding with the respondent No.1 therein and not taking any action in the matter. Moreover, in that case, a Division Bench of this Court in one of the proceedings had ordered that it would be appropriate that the petitioner therein to apply and intervene in the suit. No such facts are to be found in the present case. As the facts in the present case are totally different, the aforesaid decision relied upon by the counsel for the petitioner does not support the case of the petitioner. 5. In this view of the matter, there is no merit in the petition. The petition is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs. (J.P.DEVADHAR, J.)