1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION CHAMBERSUMMONS NO.986 OF 2008 IN SUIT NO.2014 OF 1980 Akhil Bharat Varshiya Marwadi Agarwal Jatiya & Ors. ...Plaintiffs Vs. Seksaria Sugar Mills P.Ltd. ...Defendants Mr.S.H.Doctor , Sr. Counsel, with Mr. Dipen Merchant, Mr. Ruchir Tolat, Ms. Shikha Raniwala i/b. L.C. Tolat & Co., for Plaintiffs Mr.Gaurang Mehta i/b. Mehta & Girdharilal for Defendants 1 & 2 Mr.Parimal Shroff with Mr. M.S. Mhambrey for Defendant No. 5 Mr. A.Y.Saghare for BMC CORAM: SMT.ROSHAN DALVI, J. DATED: 14 TH OCTOBER, 2008 P.C. 1. The Suit has been filed 18 years ago for specific performance of a contract upon agreement for sale entered into on 27 th July, 1972. That agreement came to be terminated on 7th November 1978, which termination has been challenged and specific performance of the agreement dated 27 th July, 1972 prayed for. No interim relief of injunction has been applied for or granted in the Suit. The 2 Defendant No.1 sought to create rights in favour of Defendant No.2 pursuant to which the Defendant No.2 have been added as party Defendant. Defendant No.2 sought to create rights in favour of Defendant No.5 so that thereafter Defendants 3,4 and 5 have been added as further party Defendants. 2. The trial has proceeded. The Plaintiffs have closed their case. The Defendants' witness has been cross examined. In this Chamber Summons the Plaintiffs have sought to add the Municipal Corporation and its officers as party Respondents. 3. It is the Plaintiffs' case that after taking out this Chamber Summons and during the cross examination it is transpired that the Defendant No.5 has sought to create further rights in favour of Gokuldham Real Estate Development Co.Pvt.Ltd. Hence now the Plaintiffs desire to join the said Gokuldham Real Estate Development Co.Pvt.Ltd., as party Defendants. 4. Initially suit was against the Defendant No.1. In the evidence the Plaintiffs' entitlement to claim specific performance of the contract dated 27 th July 1972 would essentially be required to be considered. As stated by the Plaintiffs themselves in para 22 of their affidavit in support 3 of this Chamber Summons, the Plaintiff having registered their Lis Pendens Notice, any other transaction in respect of the suit property would be subject to the outcome of the suit. Consequently further parties are not required to be joined merely because in the cross examination it comes to light that some further third party rights are created. 5. There is a plot under reservation in respect of which TDR is claimed by the parties. Part of the TDR has been released by the BMC and part is due to be released. The latest transaction by Defendant No.5 in favour of Gokuldham Real Estate Development Co.Pvt.Ltd., is in respect of the sale of the TDR which is tangible property. As correctly stated by the Plaintiffs in para 22 of the affidavit in support, the said Gokuldham Real Estate Development Co.Pvt.Ltd., would be purchasing and thereafter utilising the TDR subject to the outcome of the Suit. 6. The Respondents shown in the Chamber Summons are the Municipality and its officers who may be instrumental in sanctioning or releasing the balance TDR. Those parties are not required to be party Defendants in a Suit for specific performance. 7. The Chamber Summons is misconceived, it is dismissed. 4 The Plaintiffs shall be entitled to cross examine the witness of Defendant No.5 with regard to any 3rd party rights created, which would be subject to outcome of the Suit. The cross examination shall proceed as scheduled. (SMT. ROSHAN DALVI, J.)