LUIS ROBERTO VAZ Vs. ROQUE SILVESTRE VAZ

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Revision Application is directed against the order dt. 26th Aug. 1986, whereby the learned Additional Civil Judge, Senior Division, Margao, allowed an application filed by the respondents under O.1, R.10(2), C.P.C. and ordered that Smt. Laura Vaz, Idelfonso Vaz and his wife Beniza Vaz be impleaded as defendants in the suit.

(2.) The relevant facts may be stated. The petitioner has filed a suit for permanent and mandatory injunctions on the grounds that he is the owner in possession of a property situated at Colva. Adjoining the said property, there is a property belonging to the respondents. The respondents started construction of a building in their own property without, however, keeping the proper setback. This construction is, therefore, according to the petitioner, illegal. Along with the plaint, an application for temporary injunction was filed, praying that the respondents be restrained from undertaking the work of any construction and carrying on with the same in their property which is adjoining the petitioner's property. Ex parte injunction was granted and, thereafter, when the matters were so standing, an application under O.1, R.10(2), C.P.C. was moved stating that the property which the petitioner alleges to belong exclusively to him belongs also to other people, viz., the said Smt. Laura Vaz., Idelfonso Vaz and his Beniza Vaz. According to the respondents, the petitioner is merely a co-owner of the property. They also stated that by stopping the construction, the petitioner is not suffering any prejudice but on the contrary, grave and irreparable loss is being caused to the respondents. By the impugned order, the learned Judge allowed the said application, although the petitioner resisted the said application on the ground that he was not seeking any relief against Smt. Laura Vaz., Idelfonso Vaz and his wife Beniza Vaz and that he had attributed acts only to the respondents in the suit and as such, they have no cause of action against the persons which the respondents seek to be impleaded.

(3.) The suit was admittedly filed by the petitioner for obtaining the reliefs of permanant and mandatory injunctions, restraining on one hand the respondents from raising any construction on their property without keeping the legal setback and on the other, to demolish the construction already done by them without keeping the same setback. There is no prayer of declaration by the petitioner that he is the exclusive owner of the property which is in his possession. This being so, it is obvious that even if the said property does not belong exclusively to the plaintiff, the other co-owners, if any, are not necessary parties in a suit for permanent and mandatory injunctions. At the most, they may be proper parties.