1 6760.11-wp IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY. APPELLATE JURISDICTION. WRIT PETITION NO. 6760 OF 2011 M/s.Shivram Enterprises (I) Pvt.Ltd. ... Petitioner. V/s. The Bombay Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay and Anr. ... Respondents. Prashant Chande with Jyoti Mistry and Andrea Lobo i/b. Gayatri Sharma for the petitioner. R.A.Malandkar for respondent No.1. Ms.M.S.Bane, AGP for respondent No.2. CORAM: R.M.BORDE, J. DATED : 23rd August 2011. P.C. : Heard. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. With consent of parties, the petition is taken up for final disposal. 2. The petitioner/ original plaintiff instituted suit being L.C.Suit No.1776/2011 seeking declaration that the notice issued by the Mumbai Municipal Corporation (“Corporation” for short) dated 9th September 2011 directing the plaintiff to stop work of alleged illegal 2 6760.11-wp construction and produce permission is illegal and for permanent injunction against the defendants. The prayers in the suit are as quoted below: “a. That this Hon’ble Court be pleased to declare that the impugned notice dt. 9.8.2011 at Exhibit C hereto is illegal, bad in law, liable to be set aside and not acted upo9n and revoked. b. The Hon’ble Court be pleased to grant a permanent order and injunction against the Defendants their representatives servants, agents persons acting through them or under from in any manner taking any action in pursuance of the impugned notice dt. 9.8.2011 at Exhibit C hereto in any manner whatsoever; c. That pending the hearing and final disposal of the suit the Hon’ble Court be pleased to grant a temporary order and injunction against the Defendants their representatives servants, agents persons acting through them or under from in any manner taking any action in pursuance of the impugned notice dt. 9.8.2011 at Exhibit C hereto in any manner whatsoever. d. For interim and ad-interim reliefs in terms of prayer clause (c); e. For cost of the suit be provided for; f. For such further and other relief filed as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the nature and circumstance of the case be granted.” 3. The trial Court on its own motion passed an interim order on 10th August 2011 directing the plaintiff to implead trustees of the Trust, named Tulsiram Rangwala Trust as party defendants to the suit. The said interim order passed by the trial Court directing impleadment 3 6760.11-wp of trustees of the Tulsiram Rangwala Trust as party defendants to the suit is a subject matter of challenge in this petition. 4. It is not disputed that the petitioner is a tenant of Tulsiram Rangwala Trust. The suit is presented by the plaintiff challenging the notice issued by the Corporation under section 354-A of the Municipal Corporation Act, 1988. 5. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner vehemently contends that the trustees of the Trust are neither necessary nor proper parties to the suit. Merely because a complaint was made by one of the trustees of the Trust, the trustees do not become necessary or proper parties. The substantive challenge is to the notice issued by the Corporation dated 9th September 2011 directing the plaintiff to stop work and produce the permission. It is also contended that the matter could have been viewed from a different angle, had the interested parties presented an application seeking their impleadment. If the third party approaches the Court and makes an application for its impleadment, it would be a different matter and the court can consider the same. But in the instant matter, no such third party has approached the Court with a request for impleadment in the suit. It was not at all appropriate on the part of the trial Court to direct impleadment of the third party. More so, there are no reasons set out as to how the third parties i.e. the trustees of the Tulsiram Rangwala Trust are necessary or proper parties. The order passed by the trial Court is erroneous and against the principles of law and, therefore, deserves to be set aside. At the same time, it is made clear that if the third party approaches the Court with a prayer to implead it 4 6760.11-wp in the suit, it would be open for the trial Court to consider the said application and, in that event, this order would not be an impediment in the way of the trial Court. So far as instant order passed by the trial Court is concerned, the same is devoid of merits. In view thereof, paragraph-2 of the operative part of the order dated 10th August 2011 is quashed and set aside. 6. Rule is made absolute in terms of this order. However, in the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall not no order as to costs. (R.M.BORDE, J.)