Bombay High Court
MR. ZAHIR NAZIR SHAIKH AND ANRversusAMIR NAZIR SHAIKH AND ORS
- Decided
- Disposal
- Disposed Off
- Bench
- SANDEEP V MARNE
Holding
The petitioners are necessary parties and the trial court's dismissal of their chamber summons is set aside.
Summary
The petitioners, Zahir Nazir Shaikh and others, filed writ petitions challenging the City Civil Court's order dismissing their applications for chamber summons to be impleaded as defendants in suits filed by the respondents. The suits allege that the petitioners illegally constructed additional floors (referred to as "Cats") in a building, thereby making the petitioners directly implicated. The High Court examined whether the petitioners are necessary parties who can clarify the legality of the construction. Finding that the allegations against the petitioners are direct and material, the Court held that the trial court erred in rejecting the impleadment applications. Consequently, the orders dismissing the chamber summons were set aside, the summons were made absolute, and the petitioners were directed to file written statements within three months, with the suits to be amended within six weeks.
Issues considered
- Whether the petitioners are necessary parties to be impleaded as defendants in the suits alleging illegal construction.
- Whether the trial court erred in dismissing the chamber summons filed by the petitioners.
Subjects
- impleadment
- necessary party
- civil procedure
- chamber summons
- illegal construction
- high court
- writ petition
Judgment
Megha 1_wp_10280_2022 and group
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 10280 OF 2022
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 10529 OF 2022
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 10527 OF 2022
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 10548 OF 2022
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 10528 OF2022
Zahir Nazir Shaikh And Anr. ...Petitioners
V/s.
Amir Nazir Shaikh And Ors ...Respondent
________________
Mr. Amogh Singh with mr. Sarvesh Dixit and Mr. Rutuparn Umesh Deo
i/b Mr. A. K. Singh for Petitioners.
Mr. Rajesh Kachare i/b Mr. S. S. Kharat for Respondent No. 1 to 3.
________________
CORAM: SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.
DATED: 08 MAY 2026.
P.C.:
1) Petitions challenge orders dated 8 April 2022 passed by the
learned Judge, City Civil Court dismissing the Chamber Summons taken
out by the Petitioner for their impleadment as Defendants in the Suits.
Page No.1 of 3
8 May 2026
Megha 1_wp_10280_2022 and group
2) I have heard Mr. Singh, the learned counsel appearing for the
Petitioners and Mr. Rajesh Kachare, the learned counsel appearing for
Respondent Nos.1 to 3/ original Plaintiffs.
3) Perusal of the Plaint would clearly indicate that Plaintiffs are
challenging documents of purchase of Cats by the Defendants by alleging
that the units purchased by the Defendants are in fact illegally
constructed. Illegal construction is sought to be attributed to the
Petitioners. This is clear from averments made in paragraph 6 of the
Plaint:
6. The plaintiffs state that thereafter the Drm has applied for the
IOD in respect of the suit property, which came to be granted. The
plaintiffs state that then the Drm has also applied for the
Commencement CertiDcate in respect of the said property, which
came to be granted to the Drm only on 16.03.1998, for the only two
upper Coors of the suit Building. The plaintiffs state that however
pending the further Commencement CertiDcate, the father and
mother of the defendants had illegally and unlawfully constructed
one additional Coor along with terrace in respect of Wing-A of the
suit Building The plaintiffs state that not only that but the father and
mother of the defendants constructed two additional Coors in respect
of Wing-B of the suit Building, even though the said acts were
objected by the Plaintiffs as they were more interested in full
completion of the suit property as per the approved plan of the
B.M.C.
4) Thus, there are direct allegations against the Petitioner of
indulging in unauthorised construction of Cats, which are subject matter
of the Suits. In that view of the matter, Petitioners become necessary
parties to the Suits as they can demonstrate before the Court as to how
the suit premises are authorised.
Page No.2 of 3
8 May 2026
Megha 1_wp_10280_2022 and group
5) In my view, therefore, the Trial Court has erred in rejecting the
Applications for impleadment Dled by the Petitioners. The Petitioners
are necessary parties to the Suit. There are direct allegations against the
Petitioners in the Suits.
6) Petitions accordingly succeed. Impugned orders dated 8 April
2022 are set aside. Chamber summons Dled in each of the Petitions are
made absolute in terms of the prayers made therein. Necessary
amendments shall be carried out in the Plaint within a period of six
weeks from today. Petitioners to Dle their written statement in each of
the Suits within a period of three months from today.
7) With the above directions, the Petitions are allowed and disposed
of.
[SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.].
Signed by: Megha S. Parab
Page No.3 of 3
Designation: PA To Honourable Judge 8 May 2026
Date: 11/05/2026 16:22:45
Checking your session…