1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION CHAMBER SUMMONS NO. 1194 OF 2008 IN SUIT NO. 2485 OF 2006 Kalpbhumi Realtors Pvt. Ltd. ...Plaintiff. Vs. Nitin Jaganniwas Purandare ...Defendant. Vs. Bhanuben Jairam Chavan & Ors. ...Respondents. (Proposed Defendants) Mr. D.D.Madon i/by Mr. S.A. Sawant for the Plaintiff. Mr. V.Y. Sanglikar for the Respondents. CORAM :- ANOOP V. MOHTA, J. DATED :- 6th OCTOBER, 2009. P.C.- 1 The Plaintiff has taken out this Chamber Summons to add the Respondents as proposed defendant Nos. 2 to 4. The suit is for specific performance with regard to the property as prescribed in the plaint, based upon the agreement dated 17th July, 2003. There are other litigations pending between the parties. Even the lis-pendency notice was also issued. The Court has already directed to maintain the status-quo. However, the Respondents are dealing with the said property as alleged in collusion with the Defendant. After noticing the changes on 21st April, 2008 on the suit property and when inquired, they found that the proposed Defendant Nos. 2 to 4 are carrying out the construction on the said property. In view of above, the present chamber summons, with addition to prayer clauses (a-i) 2 and (b-1) against existing defendant, as well as, the proposed defendants for addition of parties, in my view need to be granted. 2 It is necessary for proper adjudication for the property as well as for the proper relevance. By adding these parties, I am not deciding the merits of the respective claims. All the points are kept open. The subsequent events, as the hearing of the suit is not yet commenced and therefore, to give full opportunity to both the parties, I am inclined to grant the chamber summons only to the extent of prayer clause (a). However, the liberty is granted to the Plaintiff to take out necessary motion or proceedings for interim injunction or other reliefs in respect of prayer clauses (b) and (c). 3 The reliance placed by the learned counsel appearing for the Respondents, opposing the chamber summons, on Alkapuri Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. Vs. Jayantibhai Naginbhai (deceased) Thr. L.Rs, AIR 2009 S.C.1948, referring to Order 6 Rule, 17, Order 1 Rule 10 is not applicable in view of the above facts itself. There is no question of period of limitation involved. The proposed party based upon the same, in view of the agreement if in possession of the subject matter of the property, in my view, in the present fact the presence of such proposed party is necessary as the allegations of collusion by the existing defendant with the proposed defendants are also raised and for which the presence of such party is necessary for proper adjudication of the suit. The Plaintiff has claimed right /relief against the proposed defendants also in view of subsequent 3 development and controversy for proper and effective decree, therefore the presence of the proposed defendants are necessary. 4 It is not the case of claiming of adverse title of the vendor here. It is a case that the defendants in collusion, as alleged, created and or wants to create third party right and or interest on the same property which is the subject matter of the suit, therefore, reliance on Kasturi Vs. Iyyamperumal & Ors., (2005) 6 S.C.C. 733 is also of no assistance. On the contrary, it supports the case of the Petitioner as the parties are necessary to resolve “all the questions involved in the suit as contemplated under Order 1 Rule 10(2) of the C.P.C.”. The proposed defendants cannot be treated as a stranger to the litigation and contract in question. 5 The Chamber summons is granted in terms of prayer clause (a) only, with liberty to apply for other prayer clauses (b) and (c) for appropriate proceedings. No order as to costs. 6 The Plaintiff to carry out amendment within a period of eight weeks. 7 The learned counsel appearing for the Respondents/ proposed defendants, seeks stay of this order. Considering the submission so raised already, I am inclined to grant the same. 8 Therefore, the effect and operation of this order is stayed for six weeks. (ANOOP V. MOHTA, J.)