S. MOHANRAM Vs. SUSHEELA RANGANATH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER and the 1st respondent are the neighbours. The petitioner having undertaken construction in his property, noticing encroachment and also stipulated set back area having not been maintained, the 1st respondent gave a complaint on 17.12.2009 to the 3rd respondent, to take action against the petitioner. One Dodda Thimmaiah lodged a complaint before the Lokayukta against the respondents 2 and 3, for not taking action against the petitioner. Notice under S. 321(2) of Karnataka Municipal Corporations Act, 1976 (for short 'the Act') was served on the petitioner and he was called upon to demolish the deviated portion of building The petitioner filed O.S. No. 25161/2010 in the City Civil Court, Bangalore against the authorities of BBMP, to pass a decree not to demolish any portion of his building. The 1st respondent filed an application to implead her as additional defendant in the suit. The suit was dismissed on the ground of availability of alternative remedy. An order under S. 321(3)' of the Act having been passed against the petitioner, Appeal No. 38/2010 was filed in the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore, which has passed an ad -interim order on 01.01.2010, directing both the parties to the appeal, to maintain status quo. Respondent No. 1 having filed I.A.2 in the said appeal under Regulation 40(A) of the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal Regulations, to permit her to come on record and despite the statement of objections filed by the petitioner on 27.11.2012, the Tribunal having allowed I.A.2 and permitted the applicant/1st respondent herein, to come on record as additional respondent in the appeal, this writ petition was filed seeking to quash the order dated 31.07.2013 passed on I.A.2 in Appeal No. 38/2010 by the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore. Sri. Rajeswara P.N., learned advocate contended that the Tribunal has committed error and illegality in allowing I.A.2 and permitting the 1st respondent to come on record in the appeal as respondent No. 3. He submitted that Regulation 40(A) is not applicable in view of the express provision under S. 443A of the Act. He submitted that the Tribunal has not referred the decisions cited before it i.e., Ramesh Hirachand Kundanmal v. Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay and Others, : (1992) 2 SCC 524 and Hardayal Singh Mehta and Another v. M.C.D. and Others, : AIR 1990 Delhi 170. Learned counsel submitted that the impugned order being illegal, interference is called for.

(2.) PERUSED the writ record and considered the submissions of the learned advocate.

(3.) IN Ramesh Hirachand Kundanmal, (supra), the power of the Court to add parties in exercise of the power under Order 1 Rule 10 of CPC has been considered and the scope of the provision has been explained. In Hardayal Singh Mehta, (supra), in an appeal against the order of demolishing the construction, with regard to the addition of the parties with reference to the provisions under Ss. 343 and 343(c) of Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, it was held that the grievance in the appeal being against the demolition order made by the Commissioner, he has to defend the order in the appeal and the person who may have furnished information or material to the Commissioner for initiating demolition could only be a witness and the Tribunal would not justify the addition of such a person as party to the appeal. It was held that only a person who has an interest in the subject matter of the appeal can be a party.