SATYA ACHAYYA Vs. M.A. MOHAMMED AMANULLAH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the parties. This writ petition was heard yesterday and, since the Court time got over, kept today for orders. Today, learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 1 submits that his client does not want him to appear in the writ petition and that he would take steps to seek discharge. On this ground, he seeks adjournment. His application for adjournment is rejected in view of the fact that the petition was already heard and it was kept today only for orders.

(2.) This writ petition is directed against the order dated 03.06.2014 passed by the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal (for short 'KAT'), rejecting the petitioner's application filed in Appeal No. 767/2013, under Order 1, Rule 10(2) r/w Section 151 of CPC, seeking her impleadment as respondent in the appeal.

(3.) Respondent No. 1 filed appeal before the KAT under Section 443(A) of the Karnataka Municipal Corporations Act, 1976 (for short 'the Act'). Petitioner claims that the action against respondent No. 1 was initiated and the order under sub-section (3) of Section 321 of the Act came to be passed at her instance. The petitioner is a resident in the same neighbourhood where respondent No. 1 is constructing a multistoried building. According to the petitioner, when she noticed that respondent No. 1 was constructing the building, with rapid speed, by reducing the neighbourhood resources and width of the road, she made complaints to all concerned including Lokayuktha to take action against the illegal construction. In view of her complaints/representations, the Corporation initiated/took the action under Section 321 of the Act. Respondent No. 1, therefore, filed appeal, as provided for under Section 443(A) of the Act before the KAT, and obtained an order of stay. In view of the order of stay, respondent No. 1, according to the petitioner, is again proceeding with further construction. Stay was granted on 29.08.2013. Till today, respondent-corporation has not filed any application for either vacating interim order or for expeditious hearing of the appeal. As a matter of fact, according to learned counsel for the petitioner, the order of stay was granted ex parte and till today respondent-corporation has not even entered their appearance in the appeal. In this backdrop, the petitioner, apprehending that the respondent may complete the construction, filed an application seeking her impleadment as party respondent in the appeal. The Tribunal seems to have rejected the application on the basis of the order dated 25.07.2012 passed by this Court in W.P. No. 9742/2012. In that petition, it is apparent, mat this Court had noticed that the petitioner therein had instituted a civil suit for injunction, while rejecting the application for intervention. This Court in S. Mohanram v. Smt. Susheela Ranganath and others, considered the similar question and in paragraph-6 observed thus: