Maneesh Bawa And Ors vs Narsingh Jasrajji Rajpurohit And ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 6230 Bom

Megha                                         21_wp_2585_2020.doc


               IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                       CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                             WRIT PETITION NO.2585 OF 2020

Maneesh Bawa and Ors.                                    ...Petitioners
                      Versus
Narsingh Jasrajji Rajpurohit and
Anr.                                                    ...Respondents
                                      ....
Mr. J.S. Kini i/b. Mr. S. Krishnappa for the Petitioners.


                                   CORAM : SMT. ANUJA PRABHUDESSAI, J.

DATED: 7th APRIL, 2021.

P.C.:-

The Petitioners herein have challenged the order dated

19/11/2019 in LC Suit No.72 of 2016 whereby the learned Judge

dismissed the application fled by the Petitioners under Order I Rule 10

of CPC.

2. The Respondent No.1, the Plaintif in the suit, has

challenged the notice under Section 55 of M.R.T.P. Act, 1969, issued by

Respondent No.2-Corporation. The Petitioners fled an application

under Order 1 Rule 10 of CPC claiming them to be the owners of the

portion of the land wherein the suit structure is situated. The Trial

Court while dismissing the application has held that the questions

involved in the suit are restricted to validity of notice under Section 55

Megha 21_wp_2585_2020.doc

of the M.R.T.P. Act.

3. It may be mentioned that in the case of Mohd. Hussain

Gulam Ali Sharif vs. Municipal Corporation of Gr. Bombay and Ors.

2016 SCC Online SC 1887 the challenge was to the legality of the

notice issued under Section 351 of the MMC Act. In the said suit,

application was fled under Order I Rule 10 inter alia on the ground that

the applicants had ownership right in the suit house and that they were

necessary party for proper adjudication of the rights of the parties. The

trial Court had allowed the said application holding that the applicants

were proper parties, if not necessary parties. The Writ Petition

challenging the said order was dismissed. While setting aside the order

of the trial court as well as of the High Court, the Apex Court observed

that the basic question to be decided in the suit was whether the notice

under Section 351 of the Act is legally valid or not and to decide this

question only necessary party is MMC, who had issued the said notice.

It was held that the applicants were neither necessary nor proper

parties to decide the question involved in the suit. It was further held

that the Plaintif, who is dominus litus cannot be forced to add any

person as party to the suit unless the person sought to be impleaded is

necessary party and without his presence, neither the suit can proceed,

nor the relief can be granted. The Apex Court has held that the

Megha 21_wp_2585_2020.doc

Applicants are neither necessary or proper parties to decide the suit.

4. The ratio laid down by the Apex Court in the aforesaid

judgment is squarely applicable to the facts of the present case. As

rightly observed by the Trial Court, the issue involved in the suit is only

regarding legality and validity of the notice. The presence of the

Petitioner is not required to decide the said issue. The Petitioner is

neither a necessary party nor a proper party. Consequently

Respondent No.1, who is a dominus litus, cannot be compelled to join

the Petitioner as party to the suit.

5. Under the circumstances, there is no merit in the petition.

The petition is accordingly dismissed.

(SMT. ANUJA PRABHUDESSAI, J.)