-: 1 :- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE WRIT PETITION NO.3475 OF 2009 Shri Dilipkumar Ramnihor Mishra : Petitioner (Orig.Plaintiff) V/s. Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Authority & Ors. : Respondents ... Mr.Suresh Gole for the petitioner. Mr.Indraprakash Tripathi for respondent nos.2 & 3. ... CORAM : S.A. BOBDE, J. DATE : APRIL 9, 2009. P.C. 1. Rule, returnable forthwith. Mr.Tripathi for the respondent nos.2 & 3 waives service. Heard by consent. 2. The petitioner has challenged the order dated 15.12.2008 passed by the City Civil Court, Mumbai, dismissing his Chamber Summons with costs. The learned City Civil Court found that the Chamber Summons is taken out in order to perpetrate mischief. It appears that the petitioner applied for adding two additional defendants -: 2 :- because, according to his information, those defendants had demolished his structure when the matter was in Court and he has also prayed for an injunction. 3. Mr.Gole, the learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that though the application for injunction may have been validly rejected because of an earlier order of this Court, the application for joinder of the parties ought not to have been rejected. I find, however, from the impugned order that the learned Judge dismissed the application for joinder of parties because of circumstances which are attributable to the conduct of the petitioner. In spite of the fact that there was an earlier order restraining the petitioner from putting up any structure on the suit property and even though he was directed not to carry out any activities on the plot, apparently another structure seems to have come up on the plot which the petitioner claims has been demolished by the defendants. In fact, the learned Judge has observed that it was not possible for the plaintiff to claim that the structure was in existence on 21.1.2008 since he had himself claimed that on an earlier stage, the structure in existence had been demolished and, in fact, the plaintiff was restrained by an order of injunction from putting up any further construction. The learned Judge has further observed that the plaintiff has adopted dilatory tactics -: 3 :- and has not proceeded with the evidence even though the suit was fixed for evidence since 2006 and affidavit of evidence and document has also been exhibited. There is no merit in this petition which is hereby dismissed. S.A. BOBDE, J.