CHANDRAPPA Vs. GARUDACHALA ASSOCIATES PRIVATE LIMITED AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner has assailed order dated 16-10-2014 passed in Appeal No. 1138 of 2013 by the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore (Annexure-J to the writ petition). By that order, application filed by the petitioner under Order 1, Rule 10(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 has been dismissed. Briefly stated the facts are that petitioner had made a complaint against respondent 1 with regard to construction that has been put up by the said respondent on property bearing No. 4/3, Mahadevapura Village, Bangalore East. On the said complaint, the second respondent had initiated action under Section 321 of the Karnataka Municipal Corporations Act, 1976 ('Act' for short). Initially a provisional order was passed under sub-section (1) of Section 321 of the Act. Thereafter, confirmatory order under sub-section (3) of Section 321 of the Act was passed on 17-10-2013. That order is challenged by the first respondent before the Tribunal. During the pendency of the appeal before the Tribunal, petitioner sought impleadment in the appellate proceedings. By the impugned order, the Tribunal has dismissed that application for impleadment. Being aggrieved by that order, petitioner has preferred this writ petition.

(2.) I have heard learned Counsel for petitioner. He contended that the first respondent has made serious deviations in the construction that has been put up on the property in question and that it is on the complaint made by the petitioner, action was initiated by respondent 2 pursuant to the direction issued by this Court in Writ Petition No. 45446 of 2013 and thereafter, provisional and confirmatory orders have been passed by the second respondent. The matter is pending before the Tribunal and the order passed by the BBMP has not been implemented. It is in this context, petitioner sought impleadment in the appellate proceedings. The Tribunal ought to have allowed the application, is the submission of the petitioner's Counsel.

(3.) I have considered this submission in light of the material on record and the order passed by the Tribunal.