BALRAM Vs. DR. SURIBHI SHUKLA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard.

(2.) This writ petition has been filed under Art. 227 of Constitution of India challenging the order dated 4.5.2014, passed in Regular Suit No.1674 of 2013 as well as order dated 31.3.2016, passed in Civil Revision No.51 of 2014, whereby an application preferred by opposite parties defendants namely Moinuddin Khan has been allowed and his name has been struck-off from the suit filed by petitioner-plaintiff and the revision preferred against the said order has also been dismissed.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that a suit for permanent injunction was filed by petitioner impleading opposite parties no.1 and 2 as defendants. The petitioner although has not sought any relief against opposite party no.2, but he is a proper party in the said suit as his land is adjacent to the land of petitioner. It is submitted that on the application filed under Order 10, Rule 2 C.P.C. by opposite party no.2 the learned court below has come to conclusion that the opposite party no.2 is not a necessary or proper party in the suit, as such, the application has been allowed and his name has been struck-off from the suit. The petitioner feeling aggrieved had filed the revision which too has been dismissed.