VARINDER KUMAR Vs. KULBHUSHAN BHASIN AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present revision petition has been filed against the order dated 23.8.2005 whereby an application for amendment filed by the plaintiff was dismissed. The plaintiff had sought two fold amendment. It was firstly stated by him that the two words "be stopped" be added in paragraph No. 12 of the plaint. It was further prayed that since the work relating to sanction of building plan etc. had been transferred by the Union Territory, Chandigarh to the Municipal Corporation therefore the Commissioner and the Chief Engineer of the Municipal Corporation be arrayed as defendants No. 7 and 8 in the suit.

(2.) During the course of arguments today learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that since the work related to sanction the building plans has been transferred to the Municipal Corporation, Chandigarh, the Corporation is a necessary and property. The records relating to the permissible level of height of the walls and the other specifications would now be available with the Municipal Corporation, Chandigarh. He therefore submits that the Municipal Corporation should be arrayed as a party.

(3.) As against this learned counsel for the respondents submits that this is yet another effort on the part of the respondents to delay the decision of the suit. He submitted that the suit in question has been pending from the year 1988. The dispute between the parties is as to whether or not the defendant can construct a beam over the common wall between the residences of the plaintiff and defendant. Otherwise it is the admitted position that on certain terms specified by the trial Court the beam has already been constructed. The learned counsel submits that even defendant No. 2 who is impleaded in the suit has been proceeded against ex parte.