1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.5747 OF 2008 Jethmal Mohanlal Khinwsara & Anr. ..Petitioners. V/s. Suresh Bhagwandas Bhavsar & Ors. ..Respondents. Mr.N.P.Shimpi for petitioners. CORAM: A.M.KHANWILKAR,J CORAM: A.M.KHANWILKAR,J CORAM: A.M.KHANWILKAR,J DATE : AUGUST 6, 2008. DATE : AUGUST 6, 2008. DATE : AUGUST 6, 2008. P.C. : P.C. : P.C. : 1. Even though the Petitioners are been justified in relying on observations made in paragraph-7 of the Judgment of the trial Court dated 7th December, 2000 rejecting Interim Injunction Application Exh.5. However, having regard to the nature of controversy and the substantive reliefs claimed by the Petitioners in the pending Suit for declaration that the Defendants are using suit premises illegally and for direction against the Defendants to stop such user and for relief of damages, the Corporation is neither a necessary nor proper party. 2. To get over this position, Counsel for the 2 Petitioners relies on proposed amendment of prayer clause for direction against the Corporation and its officers to take necessary action against the Defendant Nos.1 to 4. Relying on this proposed prayer, learned Counsel contends that even if the decree was to be passed in favour of the Petitioners, that cannot be executed unless that consequential relief is granted. 3. There is no substance in this submission. Inasmuch as if the suit for declaration filed by the Petitioners was to be allowed, the consequential order would be to direct the Defendant Nos. 1 to 4 to forthwith stop illegal user of the suit premises. If the Defendant Nos. 1 to 4 continued the user of suit premises inspite of such direction, there is ample power in the Court to ensure compliance of the decree passed in favour of the Petitioners. The Corporation on the other hand, has statutory duty and obligations to ensure that premises are not used for illegal purpose or purposes other than specified under the Development Control Rules. That would be additional and supplementary remedy available to the Petitioners and cannot be the basis to hold that Corporation is necessary and proper party in the suit, as filed by the Petitioners. 3 4. Hence no interference in exercise of writ jurisdiction is warranted. Petition is dismissed. (A.M.KHANWILKAR,J) (A.M.KHANWILKAR,J) (A.M.KHANWILKAR,J)