1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL REVISION APPLN.NO.446/08 Jai Rustom Aria Applicant Vs. Sanjay Munshi and Ors. Respondents Mr.Sharan Jagtiani i/b M/s Desai & Diwanji for the applicant Ms.Priti S.Shah for Res.no.1 CORAM: S.J.VAZIFDAR,J. DATE : 12th December,2008 P.C. 1] By order dated 24th October,2008 the parties were put to the notice that the matter would be decided finally at the admission stage . 2] Hence admit and heard finally. 3] The limited question is whether the applicant ought to be impleaded in the suit filed by respondent no.1 against respondent no.2 in respect of the notice u/s 354(A) of the B.M.C.Act. 4] There appear to be other proceeding also between the parties in respect of the work that is carried out on the suit premises . The notice issued by respondent no.2 to respondent no.1 also appears to have been pursuant to the complaint made by the applicant . Apart from anything else it would be convenient even in the 2 trial Court to have the presence of the applicant while deciding the matter. As the appellant has a right in the building wherein the suit premises are situated in view of the judgment of the learned Single Judge of this Court in the case Chandrakant Dharma Bhonu Vs.Pandurang Ramchandra Dandekar,AIR 2004 Bombay,374 the application ought to be allowed. This judgment has not been noticed by the learned Judge. 5] In the circumstances the impugned order is set aside and the appellant's Chamber Summons is made absolute in terms of prayers 'a ' and ' b '. Amendment be carried out on or before 14th January,2009.