KRISHNA MOHAN BARANWAL Vs. CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition has been directed against an appellate order of Chief Judicial Magistrate under Section 318 of the U.P. Municipalities Act whereby the learned Magistrate has dismissed the Petitioner's appeal for non -joinder of necessary parties.

(2.) THE Petitioner had got certain building plans sanctioned by the Municipality. Against his plans some members of the public had filed objections. The objections were partly allowed and partly rejected. Both the parties went in appeal against the order of the Administrator of the Municipal Board. On the objectors appeal No. 34/1984 the Magistrate has called for further finding from the Administrator on a disputed question of fast. The Petitioner's appeal No. 33/1984 has however been rejected for non -joinder of objectors, who according to the Magistrate were necessary parties. It is against the latter order that this writ petition has been filed.

(3.) THERE is nothing in Section 318 which may require the objectors to be impleaded as parties to an appeal preferred under that section. However, it may be assumed that in view of the principles of natural justice the objectors should also be heard on the appeal of the person who is proposing to construct a building. Assuming that to be so, it was the duty of the Chief Judicial Magistrate to have issued notices to those objectors. Indeed, those objectors were already before him on that very date, that is to say on 25 -1 -85, in connection with their own appeal against the Petitioner. They could, therefore, have been asked to show cause against the Petitioner's appeal. But it is incomprehensible as to bow the Petitioner's appeal could be dismissed as bad for non -joinder of those objectors. The Chief Judicial Magistrate was not justified in refusing even to implead those objectors as party to the Petitioner's appeal at that stage. He has taken the view that by impleading those objectors on the date of hearing the Petitioner would be getting an undue advantage as an appeal against those objectors on that date would have become time barred. Even in a civil suit a party can, in suitable cases, be impleaded after expiry of limitation for a fresh suit against Chat party, and if the court is satisfied that the omission to implead that party was due to a mistake made in good faith, it may direct that the suit as regards such party shall be deemed to have been instituted on an earlier date, vide proviso to Section 21(1), Limitation Act.