NEELAM JAIN Vs. MANGE RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present revision petition is directed against the impugned order dtd. 26/4/2018 (Annexure P-1), whereby, an application under Order 1 Rule 10 of Code of Civil Procedure (Annexure P-2) at the instance of respondent No.1 in a suit for declaration with consequential relief of permanent injunction filed by the petitioner/plaintiff, has been allowed.

(2.) Mr. Sanjay Vij, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner/plaintiff submitted that petitioner has filed civil suit seeking declaration by challenging the notices dtd. 30/12/2013 and 14/10/2016 to be null and void on various grounds. However, respondent no.1/applicant sought the impleadment on the ground that such violations were committed by the plaintiff which has caused damage to the house and resulted into withdrawal of the occupation certificate and resumption on the basis of his complaint. In such circumstances, the Court below without noticing the principle of dominus litis allowed applicant-Mange Ram to be impleaded as party, and therefore, the impugned order is not sustainable in the eyes of law.

(3.) Mr. Mange Ram/respondent No.1, who is present in person submitted that he is immediate neighbour and had right to become the party as the construction done by the plaintiff was against the sanctioned plan. The officials of HUDA and concerned Municipal Authority colluded with the plaintiff and it is only on the submission of complaint, action of resumption and withdrawal of the occupation certificate was taken, therefore, his presence is essential and necessary for adjudication of the lis.