YASODHA Vs. PRABBAKARAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE first and second defendants are the petitioners in this civil revision petition. The second respondent-Municipality has filed a suit against the revision petitioners and also the third respondent Indian oil Corporation for a permanent injunction restraining them from in any way putting up any construction over the suit property without obtaining valid permission from the plaintiff-Municipality and also for a mandatory injunction against them to remove the unauthorised construction put up by them over the suit property.

(2.) THE revision petitioners have filed written statement raising many grounds including that the property belong to them and that the construction put up by them is not unauthorised. In the meantime, the first respondent in the revision has filed I. A. No. 1294 of 2006 under Order 1 Rule 10 (2) of the Civil Procedure Code for impleading himself as a party to the suit. His case is that, he is a neighbour and by virtue of the petrol bunk run by the petitioners, he is affected since the petrol bunk causes pollution, apart from nuisance, about which he has given many complaints to the District Collector, kancheepuram, the Commissioner, Tambaram Municipality, the Chairman, Tambaram Municipality and all other authorities including the Pollution Control Board, CMDA, district Revenue Officer, Revenue Divisional Officer, tahsildar etc. According to him, the representations given to the first respondent, have not given any desired result and in the meantime, he came to know that the second respondent has filed the suit for the prayer as stated above. Since he is a necessary party, he has filed an application for impleading himself as a party. The application was resisted by the petitioners herein on the ground that the first respondent is not a proper or necessary party and inasmuch as the Municipality itself has taken action and the written statement has been filed by the petitioners, the presence of the first respondent, who is the third party to the lis, cannot be accepted as a party to the suit. Merely because, the plaintiff in the suit has no objection for impleading the third party, that itself will not give him right to be a party to the suit on the basis that he is neither a necessary nor a proper party.

(3.) THE learned trial Judge taking into consideration that the plaintiff-Municipality has no objection for impleading the third party, has allowed the application for impleadment. The reason given by the trial Judge for allowing the application is that the first respondent has made representations against the installation of petrol bunk, which is adjacent to his house and therefore, his presence will be helpful to decide the case.