1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION CHAMBER SUMMONS NO.462 OF 2008 IN APPEAL NO.208 OF 2000 IN REVIEW PETITION NO.8 OF 2000 IN NOTICE OF MOTION NO.374 OF 1997 AND NOTICE OF MOTION NO.1529 OF 1995 AND NOTICE OF MOTION NO.2191 OF 1994 IN SUIT NO.3387 OF 1994 M/S.Shah Enterprises ..... Appellant V/s. Prithvi Vallabh Bhalchandra Rawat & Ors. ..... Respondents And Bhavnesh Harish Gandhi & Anr. ..... Applicants. None for the Appellant. Mr.P.N.Patwardhan for the Respondent Nos.1 & 2. Mr.Nasim Patrawala i/b Pravin Mithi & Co. - Intervenor. CORAM : R.M.S.KHANDEPARKAR & P.B.MAJMUDAR, JJ. DATED : JUNE 13, 2008. 2 P.C. 1. Heard. 2. By the present chamber summons, the applicants are seeking to join them as party respondents to the suit and the present appeal. In the course of the hearing, it was clarified that the applicants have already succeeded in getting themselves impleaded as party defendants in the suit. 3. It is not in dispute that the suit has been filed by the owner seeking declaration that the agreement which was entered into between the owner and developer has came to an end. It is the case of the applicant that they have been inducted in the premises by the developer under the strength of Power of Attorney which was executed in favour of the developer by the owner, pursuant to the agreement which was entered into between the owner and the developer. Apart from claiming to be in possession of the premises pursuant to an induction therein by the developer, no independent or any other right is sought to be claimed by the applicant in order to justify their impleadment in the appeal. The appeal has been filed by the developer against the order passed by the learned Single Judge. In the circumstances, we do not find any justification for joining all the applicants as party respondents. 3 4. It has also been clarified on behalf of the respondents that the applicants have already filed independent suit against the owner of the land in relation to the premises in question. Obviously therefore, the applicants have taken proper steps to protect their interest if any in the premises and there is no case for allowing them to be impleaded in the present proceedings which are essentially in relation to the agreement between the owner and developer. 5. In the facts & circumstances, we therefore, find no case made out for joining the appellants as the party respondents either in the present chamber summons or in the appeal. Hence, the chamber summons is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs. ( P.B.MAJMUDAR, J.) ( R.M.S.KHANDEPARKAR, J.)