HIRANAND Vs. T M KAMBATI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition is filed against the order passed by the XI Assistant Judge, City Civil Court in I.A No.1080 of 1995 allowing the application of respondents 1 and 2 herein to implead them as defendants 3 and 4 in the suit O.S.No.810 of 1995. That suit was filed by the petitioners herein against Municipal Corporation and the Original Owner (3rd Respondent herein) seeking a declaration that the revised lay out sanctioned in the year 1970 is not valid and binding on them and for injunction restraining the Corporation from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the building situate in an area ad-measuring 177 sq. yards on the Northern side of Plot No.18 in Penderghast Road, Secunderabad.

(2.) There is no dispute that the respondents 1 and 2 are neighbours of Plot No.18. It is the case of respondents 1 & 2 that the building was unauthorisedly constructed by the plaintiffs in Plot No.18 which was meant for parking. It is also the case of the respondents 1 and 2 that taking advantage of the temporary injunction granted in O.S. No.596 of 1991 the petitioners completed the construction of the building resting the same on the compound wall of respondents 1 and 2. It is not in dispute that the injunction was vacated subsequently and the suit itself was dismissed for default. It is further stated that after dismissal of the suit, pursuant to an application filed by respondents 1 and 2, the Court directed the Municipal Corporation to take appropriate action to bring the structures to status-quo-ante. In the affidavit filed in support of the I.A., the respondents have referred to at least three suits which were filed against Municipal Corporation seeking for declaration that the plaintiffs are owners of the plot of land in question and also praying for a permanent injunction. In all those suits, admittedly, the respondents 1 and 2 were impleaded as parties. The learned Assistant Judge felt that in view of the earlier litigation and more especially the order passed in IA. 794 of 1995 in O.S. No.596 of 1991 (on the file of the I Assistant Judge) directing maintenance of status quo ante with regard to the structure put up by the petitioners which according to the respondents 1 & 2 is resting on their compound wall, the respondents 1 and 2 are necessary and proper parties to the suit. I do not think that any illegality much less an error of jurisdiction has been committed by the trial Court in allowing the impleading application filed by the respondents 1and

(3.) The contention of the learned Counsel for petitioners is that no relief is sought for against respondents 1 and 2 and in the suit filed against the Corporation and the original owner, the respondents 1 and 2 have no say. But as observed by the learned Assistant Judge, the injunction obtained in the present suit against the corporation may affect the interests of respondents 1 and 2 in the sense that it might come in the way of execution of the Order passed in LA. No.794 of 1995 in O.S. No.596 of 1991. That apart, when the validity of the lay out in which the plot in question is earmarked for a common purpose is being challenged, it cannot be said that the residents of the locality have no locus standi to implead themselves.