NEELAM AJIT Vs. V SURESH REDDY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenging the order, dated 1-10-2004, passed in I.A.No.831 of 2004 in O.S.No.5696 of 2003 on the file of the learned IV Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, the present CRP is filed.

(2.) The first respondent herein filed the main suit against the second respondent- Municipal Corporation for perpetual injunction and not to demolish the building in question. An interlocutory application was filed for grant of temporary injunction and the same was allowed by the trial Court. While the matter stood thus, the petitioner herein, who is a third party i.e. neighbour of the petition schedule building, filed the present I.A. to implead him as 2nd defendant under Order I Rule 10 CPC alleging that the first respondent herein is constructing the building deviating the sanctioned plan and that the second respondent failed to take any action for the said unauthorized constructions and that easementary rights of his building have been adversely affected due to illegal structures. The trial Court dismissed the said LA. on the ground that the second respondent Corporation is a mighty institution and a statutory body, which is having learned Standing Counsel to represent the Corporation and put forth the real facts before the Court, and that there would not be any chances for collusion of MCH with the first respondent/plaintiff and therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to any relief as claimed in the present petition. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed the present CRP.

(3.) Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner vehemently contended that since the first respondent herein was making constructions deviating the sanctioned plan, the petitioner filed W.P.No.23802 of 2003, wherein, a direction was given to the officials of the Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad, to inspect the petition schedule property and to prepare a report of the deviations made by respondents 3 to 5 and 7 while making constructions, after giving a notice to the Jubilee Hills Co-operate House Building Society and also the present petitioner. But, the second respondent-Municipal Corporation is acting in collusion with the first respondent/plaintiff and did not give any report after conducting inspection and therefore, the petitioner is a proper party, if not a necessary party. Hence, he prays to set aside the impugned order.