1 WP 5596/10 abs FARAD CONTINUATION IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 5596 OF 2010 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Court's or Judge's Orders Coram, appearances, Court's Orders or directions and Registrar's Orders Mr. S.A. Waradkar i/b Ms. Nutan S. Moily for the petitioner. Mr. V.R. Tripathi i/b V.R. Tripathi & Associates for respondent no.2. Mr. M.M. Malankar for respondent no1. CORAM : D.G. KARNIK, J. DATE : 26TH NOVEMBER 2010 P.C. : 1. Heard. 2. By this petition, the petitioner challenges the order dated 8th July 2010 passed by the learned Judge of the City Civil Court, Mumbai, allowing the application of the respondent no.2 made under Order 1 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure for being joined as a party defendant no.2 to the suit. 2 WP 5596/10 3. The respondent no.1 – Municipal Corporation issued a notice to the petitioner under section 351 of the Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act (for short “the Act”) regarding the suit structure. In the said suit, the respondent no.2 made an application for being joined as a party. The application was allowed. That order is impugned in the writ petition. 4. Relying upon a decision of the Supreme Court in Ramesh Hiranand Kundanmal v. Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay, (1992) 2 SCC 524, counsel for the petitioner submitted that the respondent had no direct interest in the suit property and, therefore, he could not be joined as a party to the suit. It may be noted that the respondent no.2 had previously filed a writ petition (bearing Writ Petition No. 1704 of 2009) for demolition of the suit structure on the ground that it was unauthorised and that despite his demand, the respondents were not taking any action to 3 WP 5596/10 demolish it in accordance with law. By an order dated 25th November 2009, a Division Bench of this Court (Swatanter Kumar, CJ. & A,M. Khanwilkar, J.) allowed the writ petition and directed the respondents therein to take appropriate action. Accordingly, the respondent no.1 issued the impugned notice under section 351 of the Act. It cannot be said that the present respondent no.2 has no direct interest. The notice under section 351 of the Act has been issued in pursuance of the direction issued by the Division Bench of this Court in Writ Petition No. 1704 of 2009 filed by the respondent no.2. He, therefore, has a direct interest in the demolition. The decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Ramesh Hiranand Kundanmal v. Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay (supra), therefore, does not apply in the facts and circumstances of the present case. The writ petition is accordingly rejected summarily. (D.G. KARNIK, J.)