: 1 : 582-11-cra=.sxw USJ IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 582 OF 2011 IN CHAMBER SUMMONS NO.658 OF 2010 IN L.C. SUIT NO. 813 OF 2008 John Thomas Milton .. Applicant v/s. Municipal Corporation of Gr. Mumbai .. Respondents And Inder B. Mehra .. Proposed Respondent ......... Mr. G.V. Pandya for the applicant ......... CORAM : R.Y.GANOO, J DATE : 30th SEPTEMBER,2011. P.C. : 1. The applicant received notice from Mumbai Municipal Corporation, which is at page 121. According to the Corporation the said structure is standing on the land which is unauthorised and explanation of the petitioner is sought in that behalf. The applicant has filed L.C. Suit No.813 of 2008 in connection with the said notice. : 2 : 582-11-cra=.sxw 2. Respondent no.2 filed chamber summons in the aforesaid suit being Chamber Summons No.658 of 2010 praying therein that respondent no.2 should be joined as party defendant as according to respondent no.2, he has an interest in the land, on which the impugned structure is standing. 3. The said chamber summons was granted by the learned Judge of the City Civil Court by order dated 5th May, 2011. This order is challenged in this petition. I have heard learned advocate for the petitioner. A perusal of the chamber summons and impugned order goes to show that respondent no.2 wants to contend that he has right in the land in question. If this is the stand of the respondent no.2, the ultimate decision arrived at by the learned Judge, City Civil Court so as to grant the chamber summons by impugned order, cannot be interfered with. 4. At this stage, it is required to be noted that in the order dated 5th May, 2011, the learned Judge has recorded as follows: “.... It is the contention of the applicant that he is having substantial right in the suit premises as plaintiff committed the encroachment by way : 3 : 582-11-cra=.sxw of alteration in the property which is in his possession”. 5. A perusal of the entire record would go to show that the learned Judge has recorded the contention of the respondent no.2 and if that is so, it cannot be equated with a finding of the Court that the respondent no.2 is the owner of the suit premises. All contentions in that behalf are left open. Presence of respondent no.2 is required. I am not inclined to interfere with the impugned order. Civil Revision Application is dismissed at the stage of admission. There shall be no order as to costs. (R.Y.GANOO, J.)