Writ Petition No. 1564 of 2008 · Bombay High Court
Case at a glance
Provisions considered
Judgment
-------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court’s orders or directions and Registrar’s Orders -------------------------------------------------------------------------- Counsel i/by. Mr.A.Y.Sakhare, Learned Mr.Sandesh petitioner. None for the respondents. Court’s or Judge’s Senior D.Patil Orders CORAM: S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATED: 11TH MARCH, 2008. P.C. : : : P.C.P.C.
There is no reason to interfere with the order of the Trial Court refusing to implead the present petitioner as a Defendant to the suit.
The Trial Court has rejected the Application on the ground that the action of the Municipal Corporation in not abiding by sanctioned Plan which was presented by the :2::2::2: Original Plaintiff, but, issuing a Notice under Section 487 of the Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporation Act, 1949 is under challenge. The case of the petitioner is that, based upon his complaint that the Corporation proceeded to issue the impugned Notice and that too after sanctioning the Plan on 18.01.2007. The Corporation issued a Commencement Certificate, but, is prohibiting the Plaintiff from proceeding with the construction activity and that is because of the complaints of the petitioner and one other person. The Notice is therefore challenged.
Merely because the petitioner has filed a complaint, it does not mean that he is a necessary party to the suit. If the petitioners’ complaint is based upon some right in the property, regarding which the Commencement Certificate has been issued, then, the remedy of the petitioner is to institute a substantive suit asserting such right and implead therein all parties including the :3::3::3: Corporation. The petitioners’ remedy of asserting his right, title in the property and claiming any reliefs on that basis is intact and can by no stretch of imagination can be said to be affected by either the instant suit or the relief claimed therein. The order under challenge therefore suffers from no infirmity, much less, of the nature warranting interference under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Petition dismissed. No costs. ********
Questions this judgment answers
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporation Act, 1949 — s. 487; Constitution of India — art. 227.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Bombay High Court, on 11 Mar 2008. The bench was S C DHARMADHIKARI.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.