GIRIJADEVI Vs. HORMIS THALIATH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision is against the order of the Munsiff's Court, Ernakulam, rejecting the petitioner's application to be impleaded as a party-defendant in O. S. No. 604 of 1982 on its file.

(2.) The petitioner and the 1st respondent in this revision are neighbouring owners of land having a compound wall to separate their respective plots of land. The petitioner is the owner of the western plot with a residential building thereon where she is residing with her family. The 1st respondent's plot is on the east of the petitioner's land.

(3.) The petitioner had filed O. S. No. 398 of 1981 on the file of the Munsiff's Court, Ernakulam, for an injunction against the 1st respondent from interfering with or altering the compound wall separating the plots of the petitioner and the 1st respondent. She had also applied for a temporary injunction for similar reliefs against the 1st respondent pending the suit. The 1st respondent entered appearance and after hearing both sides the Munsiff's Court passed an order permitting the 1st respondent to make such alterations to the compound wall as are in conformity with R.30(5) of the Kerala Municipal Buildings Rules. It is the petitioner's case that without complying to the requirements of the rule and without obtaining the requisite sanction from the Corporation of Cochin, the 1st respondent put up additional constructions on the compound wall raising its height to about 20 feet, thereby preventing the supply of light and air to the petitioner's building, almost completely. The petitioner complained about the unauthorised construction by the 1st respondent, to the Commissioner of the Corporation and the Commissioner after due notice to the 1st respondent and after hearing him passed an order under S.263 of the Kerala Municipal Corporations Act directing the 1st respondent to demolish the unauthorised construction. Thereupon the 1st respondent filed O. S.604 of 1982 on the file of the lower court for an injunction restraining the Corporation and its Commissioner from implementing the order for demolition of the additional construction on the compound wall. Even though there are allegations in the plaint in O. S. No. 604 of 1982 that it was at the instance of the petitioner that the Commissioner of the Corporation had passed the impugned order directing the demolition of the additional construction, the petitioner is not made a party to the suit. The suit is only against the Corporation and its Commissioner impleaded as defendants 1 and 2 respectively. The 1st respondent has also obtained an ex parte interim order in I. A. No. 2502 of 1982 against the Corporation and its Commissioner from implementing the order for demolition of the additional construction. It was at this stage that the petitioner filed I.A. No. 2856 of 1982 under O.1 R.10(2), CPC. to get herself impleaded as additional 3rd defendant in O.S. No. 604 of 1982, to enable her to oppose the suit and the application for temporary injunction. I. A. No. 2856 of 1982 was dismissed by the lower court by order dated 11-10-1982 on the ground that the plaintiff is dominus litis and the petitioner has no right to get herself impleaded in the suit against the opposition of the plaintiff and the plaintiff cannot be compelled to fight a litigation against a person against whom he does not claim any relief. It is against this order of the lower court that the petitioner has come up in revision.