IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 2102 of 2014 =========================================================== KETAN P PATEL....Petitioner(s) Versus GANDHAKWALA MEMBERS ASSOCIATION & 17....Respondent(s) ================================================================ Appearance: ABHISST K THAKER, ADVOCATE for the Petitioner(s) No. 1 MR IM PANDYA, ADVOCATE for the Respondent(s) No. 1 - 9 , 11 - 17 NOTICE SERVED BY DS for the Respondent(s) No. 10 , 18 ================================================================ CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.H.VORA Date : 26/09/2016
[1] By way of present petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner challenges the order dated 04.01.2014 passed below Chamber Summons Exh.98/99 in Civil Suit No.2197 of 2010 by the learned City Civil Judge.
[2] I have heard the submissions made by learned advocate Mr. Abhisst Thaker, appearing for the petitioner and learned advocate Mr. I.M.Pandya, appearing for some of the respondents.
[3] Having heard the submissions made at bar and considering the impugned order, it appears that respondent Nos.2 to 18 herein taken out chamber summons Exh.98/99 to implead them as plaintiff Nos.2 to 18 in the above suit. According to the respondent Nos.2 to 18, since the Act being Bombay Non-Trading Corporation Act, 1959 has been repealed on 25.02.2005, the respondent Nos.2 to 18 made a request to implead as plaintiff Nos.2 to 18 in the said suit as they are members of the Gandhakwala Cooperative Housing Society Limited. The learned trial Judge while allowing the chamber summons Exh.98/99, ordered to strike off the plaintiff No.1 i.e. Gandhakwala Cooperative Housing Society Limited-NTC as it is not legal entity and thus, respondent No.1 came to be replaced by respondent Nos.2 to 18.
[4] Upon perusal of chamber summons Exh.98/99, there is no such prayer made in the chamber summons to strike off the name of the plaintiff No.1 and therefore, at this stage, learned advocate Mr.I.M.Pandya, appearing for some of the respondents would contend that whole purpose and intention behind chamber summons Exh.98/99 was to strike off the name of plaintiff No.1 and therefore, he made a request to permit respondent Nos.2 to 18 to move fresh application with specific prayer to strike off the name of plaintiff No.1 from the cause-title of the plaint.
[5] In view of above facts, it is clear that the learned trial Judge has passed impugned order without any prayer made by the respondent Nos.2 to 18 to strike off the name of plaintiff No.1 from the cause-title of the plaint.
[6] Under the circumstances and in view of above facts, the respondent Nos. 2 to 18 are hereby directed to take out fresh chamber summons with specific prayer to strike off the name of plaintiff No.1 in lieu of present chamber summons Exh.98/99. As and when such chamber summons is taken out by the respondent Nos.2 to 18, the same shall be decided by the learned trial Judge uninfluenced by the observations recorded in the impugned order as well as in the present order and shall pass appropriate order after hearing both the sides. The learned trial Judge is also directed to decide application preferred by the petitioner under the provisions of Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure alongwith the chamber summons that may be taken out by the respondent Nos.2 to 18.
[7] The present petition is hereby allowed as aforesaid and the impugned order is hereby quashed and set aside in view of above observation and direction. Direct service is permitted. (S.H.VORA, J.) siddharth