1 mp t IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 5647 of 2008 Bapusaheb G. Chile .. Petitioner versus Municipal Corporation for Gr.Mumbai and ors. .. Respondents ... Mr.Sakhardande i/b Smt.S.S. Wagh for the Mr.Pravin Mehta i/b Mithi & Co. for respondent no.3. Mr.S.D. Rayrikar AGP for respondent no.2. CORAM : A.M.KHANWILKAR, J DATED : 29th August 2008 P.C.: 1. Heard counsel for the parties. 2. In my opinion, the trial court has justly allowed the Chamber Summons filed by the respondent no.3 on the finding that respondent no.3 was the owner in respect of the suit property on which the 2 disputed structure was standing. That view is supported by principal expounded by the Apex Court in Aliji Momonji Vs. Lalji Mavji & ors reported in (1996) 5 SCC 379. Counsel for the petitioner however submits that adding the respondent no.3 as defendant in the suit filed by the petitioner would cause embarrassment to the petitioner. 3. I see no substance in this submission. Even if the owner is impleaded as party-defendant to the suit challenging the action of the corporation u/s.351 of the Corporation Act, the scope of the said suit will be limited to the legality and necessity of such an action at the instance of the corporation with regard to the suit structure. The fact that the petitioner claims to be owner of the suit structure would make no difference as the respondent no.3 as per the registered conveyance deed is the owner of the land on which the suit structure is standing. 4. Significantly in the present case, the Corporation has not filed any written statement. This is in fact a good reason for the owner to step in the proceedings to effectively defend the suit filed by the petitioner for declaration about the legality of the action initiated by the corporation u/s.351 of the Corporation Act, lest the suit is 3 decided by default in favour of the petitioner. Even for this reason, the owner in the fact situation of the present case is a proper party in the proceedings and the trial court has recognised that position in own decision. 5. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the specific stand of the petitioner is that he has become owner in respect of the said structure by adverse possession. As aforesaid, the limited issue to be considered in the proceedings is about the legality of the action of the corporation u/s.351 and no other issue. 6. Hence, no interference is warranted. (A.M.KHANWILKAR, J)