jpc 1 wp2522-11.sxw IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 2522 OF 2011 M/s Alfa Engineering Company ... Petitioner Versus Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai and others ... Respondents Mr. D. S. Sawant a/w Mr. Rajesh B. Parab for the petitioner Mr. Pratap F. Singh, for the respondent No.2 CORAM: R. M. SAVANT, J. DATED : 20th December, 2011 P.C. : 1. Rule, with the consent of the parties, made returnable forthwith and heard. 2. The above petition takes exception to the order dated 31st March, 2010 passed by the learned Judge of the City Civil Court, Greater Bombay by which order the application Exh.6 filed in Long Cause Suit No. 677 of 2008 came to be allowed. Resultantly, the two applicants namely, Jafarali Sevwala and Nooruddinali Sevwala are added as party defendants to the said suit. 3. Shorn of unnecessary details, a few facts can be stated thus: jpc 2 wp2522-11.sxw The petitioner herein which is a partnership firm registered on 27th November, 2006 has filed the said Suit No. 677 of 2008 challenging the communication dated 8th March, 2008 by which communication, the permit granted to the petitioner under section 390 read with Section 479 of the Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act came to be revoked. The petitioner firm is carrying out the business of assembling electric fans as well as repairing of household electrical appliances and articles in Gala No. 19, 2nd Floor of the premises situated at the address mentioned in the cause title of the said suit. It appears that prior to the said Exh.6 application, an application was filed by the son of the applicant no.1 namely Hussein Jafarali Sevwala for impleadment in the said suit which application came to be rejected by the trial Court by order dated 4th July 2008. It appears that the said applicant had also relied upon the identical documents i.e. the complaint made to the BMC against the plaintiff, for his impleadment. 4. It is pertinent to note that after the said application of Hussein was rejected on 4th July, 2008 the present applicants have filed the instant application Exh.6 on 20th July, 2008 and the substratum of the said application is the letter dated 8th March, 2008 which has been addressed to one of the applicants however the address in the said letter is that of the petitioner. The said application was opposed by the jpc 3 wp2522-11.sxw petitioner by filing its reply and inter alia, taken contention that the applicants are neither necessary party nor proper party. Considering the lis that is being adjudicated upon, the learned trial Court passed the impugned order. Whilst allowing the said application particularly relying upon the letter dated 8th March, 2008 addressed to the applicant no.1 Jafarali Sevwala, the trial Court seems was carried away by the fact that there is some litigation pending between the parties and therefore held that it was necessary to implead the applicants as party defendants. 5. In so far as the said letter dated 8th March, 2008 is concerned, the learned counsel for the petitioner Shri Sawant has drawn my attention to the certificate of registration of the said partnership firm which has been issued by the Registrar of Firm on 27th November, 2006 as also the other documents. The said documents disclose that there are only three partners Smt. Asma Hakimuddin Attarwala (2) Mr. Zohar Hakimmuddin Attarwala and (3) Saifuddin Hakimuddin Attarwala. Name of the applicant Jafarali Sevwala i.e. respondent nos. 2 herein does not appear in any of the said documents. The suit as indicated above has been filed challenging the revocation of permit granted by the BMC under Section 390 read with section 479 of the MMC Act. It is pertinent to note that though the rejection of the earlier application of the son jpc 4 wp2522-11.sxw Hussein was pleaded and also the submissions were advanced on the said basis, as also on the communication dated 8th March, 2008 and submissions, were also advanced to the effect that the respondent no.2 Jafarali could not have any connection with the petitioner firm, the said submissions have not been even adverted to by the trial Court in the impugned order, however by merely referring to the letter dated 8th March, 2008, the trial Court has allowed the said application Exh.6 filed for impleadment by the applicants. 6. In the light of the documents relating to the partnership firm, how the said letter dated 8th March, 2008 was addressed to the Respondent no.2 Jafarali Sevwala at the address of the petitioner begs an answer. The trial Court ought to have addressed the said issue. The trial Court also ought to have considered the order passed on the application of the son Hussein, the trial Court also ought to have considered the submissions made on behalf of the petitioner in respect of the said letter dated 8th March, 2008 and without considering any of the aforesaid aspects, the trial Court, by a cryptic order, allowed the said application. In my view, therefore, the impugned order is required to be quashed and set aside and is accordingly quashed and set aside. The matter is relegated back to the trial Court for a de novo consideration of the application Exh.6 in the light of the what has been jpc 5 wp2522-11.sxw stated herein above. On remand the trial Court to decide the said application Exh.6 within a period of two months from the first appearance of the party. The parties to appear before the trial Court on 9th January, 2012. The trial Court to decide the said application within two months thereafter. The parties would be at liberty to file additional affidavits or replies, if so advised. 7. Rule is accordingly made absolute in the aforesaid terms with parties to bear their respective costs. (R. M. SAVANT, J.)