1 pps IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 2564 OF 2009 Sea Star Habitat Pvt. Ltd, & Anr. ..Petitioners versus Jean Vinay Kalgutkar & Ors. ..Respondents Mr.S.A.Bhagwat for the petitioner Mr.Navroz Seerwai, Sr,Counsel with Mr. Basant Tilokani i/b. Jhangiani Narula & Associates for the respondent Nos.1 and 2. Mr. Anil Singh a/w. Ashwin Singh i/b.D.R.Shah for the respondent Nos.5 & 6. CORAM : A.S.OKA, J. DATE : 30th JULY, 2009. P.C: 1. Heard learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondent Nos.1 and 2 and the learned Counsel appearing for respondent Nos.5 and 6. The first and the second respondents are the original plaintiffs. The present petitioners had taken out a Chamber Summons praying for various reliefs. The first prayer in the Chamber Summons was that the 2 petitioners be ordered to be impleaded as defendant Nos.5 and 6. The second prayer was that pending the hearing and final disposal of the suit, the Court shall not accept the consent terms, compromise or arrangement which has been filed between the plaintiffs and the defendants to the suit. By the impugned Order, the learned trial Judge has granted prayer clause (a) of the Chamber Summons by directing the first and second respondent plaintiffs to implead the petitioners as defendants. 2. The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners invited my attention to Clause 4 of the operative part of the impugned order by which the learned Trial Judge has directed that the petitioners who will be added as defendants will not be allowed to file written statement. He pointed out that the learned trial Judge has recorded a finding that the petitioners are proper parties. Therefore, the petitioners could not have been deprived of an opportunity to file written statement. 3 3. The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners invited my attention to the averments made in affidavit in support of the Chamber Summons. He submitted that the apprehension is that the plaintiffs and defendants may enter into compromise thereby defeating the rights of the petitioners in as much as the petitioners have filed a suit for specific performance against the first and second respondents in this Court and the said suit is pending. He, therefore, submitted that the petitioners be permitted to file written statement. 4. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the first and second respondents submitted that though the petitioners were not entitled to be impleaded as party defendants, the first and second respondents have not challenged the said order as the said respondents want to ensure that the trial of the suit is not delayed. He submitted that the petitioners are neither necessary or nor proper 4 parties. 5. The learned Counsel appearing for the respondent Nos.5 and 6 supported the petitioners. 6. I have given careful consideration to the submissions. The learned trial Judge recorded a finding that though the petitioners may not be necessary parties, they are proper parties. The learned Judge exercised jurisdiction under Sub Rule 2 of Rule 10 of Order 1 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 by directing that the petitioners be impleaded as defendants. The learned Judge has observed that the jurisdiction under the said provision of impleading parties can be exercised subject to suitable terms and conditions. The learned Judge observed that the petitioners are being joined as a proper party only as spectators and therefore they are not entitled to file written statement. In my view, the learned Trial Judge was justified in imposing a condition that the petitioners will not be entitled to file 5 written statement. 7. The apprehension expressed by the petitioners was that the parties who were originally impleaded in the suit may enter into settlement and obtain a consent decree. The substantive suit filed by the petitioners against the first and second respondents is pending in this Court. It is obvious that the petitioners will not be bound by any such settlement as obviously the petitioners will not be parties to such settlement. Any settlement entered into between the parties to the suit to which the petitioners are not parties will not bind the petitioners. 8. Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that a clarification may be made that the findings which may be recorded by the trial court in the suit filed by first and second respondents will not affect merits of the suit for specific performance filed by the petitioners in this court. The submission of the learned Counsel 6 appearing for the first and second respondents is that the petitioners have entered into transaction which is subject matter of suit pending in this court with the full knowledge of the pendency of the suit filed by the first and second respondents. At this stage it is not possible to record the finding on this aspect either way. 9. In the circumstances, no case is made out for interference by this Court in its extra ordinary jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Petition is rejected. 10.It is however, made clear that all contentions of the parties in the pending suits are expressedly kept open. (A.S.Oka, J.)