Renuka Thakur 6-WP-7306-2026.docx IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 13995 OF 2018 Shantaben Thakershi Tank and Ors. ...Petitioners V/s. Pesi Keki Sidhwa and Ors. ...Respondents WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 13997 OF 2018 Shantaben Thakershi Tank and Ors. ...Petitioners V/s. The Reserve Bank Employees Snehdhara Co-Op. Hsg. Soc. Ltd. and Anr ...Respondents ________________ Mr. Shashikant P. Chaudhari with Mrs. Snehal S. Chaudhari, Mr. Manojkumar Singh, Mr. Puneet Shukla, Mr. Gyanprakash Pal, Mr. Pranot Pawar and Ms. Sarita Pal i/b Maharashtra Law Associates for Petitioners. Mr. Roshan Reji i/b Mr. Sachin A. Mhatre for Respondent No. 6 in WP/13997 of 2018 and for Respondent No. 2 in WP/13997 of 2018. ________________ CORAM: SANDEEP V. MARNE, J. DATED: 18 SEPTEMBER 2026. P.C.: 1) These Petitions challenge order dated 25 September 2018 passed by the learned Judge, City Civil Court allowing Chamber Page No. 1 of 3 18 SEPTEMBER 2026 Renuka Thakur 6-WP-7306-2026.docx Summons filed by Respondent No. 6/2 seeking his impleadment in the suit. 2) I have heard Mr. Chaudhari, the learned counsel appearing for the Applicants, Mr.Reji appears on behalf of Respondent No. 6/2. 3) Plaintiffs have filed the Suit seeking injunction against the Defendants from dispossessing them from the suit properties without following due process of law. Respondent No. 6/2 claims that the suit properties were in the possession of his father late Bhagwan Nanji Tank and that therefore he also has interest in the suit properties. In the entire Application, there is not even a single averment that Respondent No. 6/2 is in possession of the suit premises. He is admittedly not possessing the suit properties as observed. He may have claims against Plaintiffs in respect of the suit properties but the said claims cannot be adjudicated in the suits filed by the Plaintiffs. Suits involved simple inquiry into claim of possession raised by the Plaintiffs and whether injunction can be granted against Defendants. In this suit alleged disputes between Plaintiffs and Defendant Nos. 6/2 over the suit premises cannot be adjudicated. 4) The learned counsel appearing for Respondent No. 6/2 submits that Respondent No. 6/2 is also entitled to claim adverse possession. However, the suit is not filed seeking a declaration of acquisition of title in the suit premises through adverse possession. This is a plain injunction suit filed for the purpose of protecting possession of the Plaintiff. As of now it is difficult to assume that Defendant No. 6 is in Page No. 2 of 3 18 SEPTEMBER 2026 Renuka Thakur 6-WP-7306-2026.docx possession of the suit premises. Since he cannot claim possession in this suit and he cannot seek injunction for protecting his possession and from dispossessing him without due following due process of law. If Respondent No. 6 has any claims against Plaintiffs qua the suit premises, he needs to adopt appropriate remedies in respect of that grievance. In a suit filed seeking simplicitor injunction, Defendant No. 6/2 cannot seek to broaden the scope of inquiry and seek to adjudicate his claims against Plaintiffs. The City Civil Court has failed to appreciate this position and has erroneously allowed the Chamber Summons filed by the Respondent No.6. 5) Impugned orders are thus indefensible and liable to be set aside. 6) I accordingly proceed to pass the following order:- (i) Orders dated 25 September 2018 passed by the City Civil Court in Chamber Summons No. 92 of 2018 and 135 of 2018 are set aside. Both the Chamber Summons are dismissed. 7) Writ Petitions are allowed in above terms. There shall be no order as to costs. [SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.] Page No. 3 of 3 18 SEPTEMBER 2026 Signed by: Renuka S Thakur Designation: PA To Honourable Judge Date: 21/09/2026 18:46:31