Lsp IN IN IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL CIVIL CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 9010 of 2007 Deepak PIngale & ors. ...Petitioners V/s. The Executive Engineer & ors. ...Respondents Mr. Rajeev Matkar for the petitioners. Mr. Anil Singh i/b. D.R. Shah for respondent no.2. Mr. R.B. Paranjpe i/b. B.G.Saraf for respondent no.3. Mr. S.P.Thorat for MHADA. CORAM CORAM CORAM : A.M.KHANWILKAR,J. : A.M.KHANWILKAR,J. : A.M.KHANWILKAR,J. DATED DATED DATED : 15TH JANUARY, 2009 : 15TH JANUARY, 2009 : 15TH JANUARY, 2009 P.C. . Heard Counsel for the parties. Mr. Anil Singh waives notice for respondent no.2. Mr. R.B.Paranjape waives notice for respondent no.3 and Mr. Thorat waives notice for MHADA. 2. As short question is involved, petition is taken up for final disposal forthwith, by consent. 3. This petition under Article 227 of Constitution of India takes exception to the Judgement and Order passed by the City Civil Court at Mumbai dated 4th October, 2007 in Chamber Summons No. 854 of 2006. By the said order, third party was ordered to be impleaded as defendant no.3 in the pending suit filed by the petitioners. The petitioners are occupants of hutment in respect of which redevelopment proposal is being considered by MHADA. The third party claims that he was 2 appointed as Contractor by MHADA. At the sametime, the record indicates that the contract period of the third party-respondent no.3 came to an end on 14th January, 2008. If the contract period of third party is over, the question of his being impleaded as party defendant in the pending suit does not arise. That is more so, because, it is submitted on behalf of MHADA that MHADA is considering proposal to appoint another Builder to undertake redevelopment scheme. If the third party has any grievance against decision of MHADA, it is free to pursue that remedy which will have to be decided in accordance with law. However, in the suit filed by the occupants which questions the correctness of the show-cause notice issued by MHADA calling upon them to vacate the disputed hutment, the presence of third party contractor appointed by MHADA is neither necessary nor proper. Thus understood, the order passed by the Lower Court alongwith Chamber Summons filed by the third party respondent no.3 and directing the petitioners-plaintiffs to implead him as defendant no.3 deserves to be set aside. Accordingly, this petition is allowed. Impugned Judgement and order is set aside. Consequently, Chamber Summons No. 854/2006 shall be treated as having been dismissed in terms of this order. [A.M.KHANWILKAR,J.] [A.M.KHANWILKAR,J.] [A.M.KHANWILKAR,J.]