:1: IN IN IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION CHAMBER SUMMONS NO.908 OF 2006 IN SUIT NO.1775 OF 2002 Standard Chartered Bank. ..Plaintiff. Vs. Jethanand Arenja and ors. ..Defendants. And Canara Bank and anr. ..Respondents. Mr.F.Sayyad for the Plaintiff. Mr. P.N. Singh for the Defendant No.1. Vaishali R. Bhilare for the Respondent No.1. CORAM : R.S. MOHITE, J. DATE : 17/4/2009. P.C. P.C. P.C. 1. This is a chamber summons taken out by the original plaintiffs for effecting the amendment as per the Schedule. The Schedule indicates that the original plaintiffs want to add Canara Bank and one Aminbhai as the additional defendants. The facts are that the plaintiffs took the suit premises on leave and licence basis from one Jethanand Arenja. Under the terms of the leave and licence deposit of Rs.60/- lacs was paid by the plaintiffs as security deposit for occupying the flat. Since this amount was not returned after the death of Jethanand Arenja. The suit was filed for recovery of the said amount against the heirs who are the present defendants. 2. In the mean while Canara Bank to whom who had a claim of some dues filed proceding before the DRT and :2: the flat occupied by the plaintiffs was attached in the said proceeding. The plaintiffs intervened in those proceedings and ultimately an amount of Rs.60/- lacs which was due to the plaintiffs was paid to the plaintiffs subject to the undertaking that in case the present suit is dismissed the plaintiffs will bring back the money along with normal rate of interest. 3. In this background, on facts, in my view, Canara bank as well as the person to whom they ultimately sold the flat i.e. Mr. Aminbhai are not necessary or proper parties to determine the dispute in the present case. In case, if the plaintiff succeed in the suit they are entitled to retain the said amount. If they fail in the suit, they have to return the suit amount. There is no privity of contract between the plaintiffs and the proposed additional respondents and there presence is not necessary to decide the issue which the court will have to decide in this suit. Chamber summons is therefore dismissed. 4. It may be stated here that at the very out set the Advocate for the plaintiffs stated that he was not pressing the chamber summons against the respondent No.2. (R. S. MOHITE, J.)