RIYAZ AHMED Vs. EXECUTIVE OFFICER, MUNICIPAL BOARD, JAITARAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present writ petition has been filed under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India with the following prayers:-

(2.) The facts apropos to the case are that the petitioner filed a suit for permanent injunction against the respondents Nos.1 and 2 wherein it has been alleged that the petitioner is having a residential house in Jaton Ka Bas, Jaitaran which is having two doors; one in eastern side and the other in the western side. It was alleged that since the door situated in the western wall of house was damaged due to rains and when he was substituting the said wooden door by an iron door, the defendants objected to the same and sent a notice dtd. 27/12/2010 for removal and closure of the said door and he was threatened to close the western exit of his house. Hence, the petitioner filed the said suit for permanent and mandatory injunction against the defendantsrespondents praying therein that they may be restrained from closing his western exit door so also from causing any damage to his house. It was also prayed that if during the pendency of the suit, if the said western door is closed by the defendants forcibly, the same may also be directed to be reopened by way of mandatory injunction.

(3.) During the pendency of the said suit, the applicants - respondents Nos.3 to 13 herein, moved an application under Order 1 Rule 10(2) read with Sec. 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure stating inter-alia that their houses are situated in the neighborhood of the petitioner and that they are using the passage upon which petitioner has constructed stairs, which would result in narrowing of the passage/way. It was alleged in the said application that previously there was no door in the western side of the house of the petitioner and when he started constructing door in the western side, they made complaint to the SubDivisional Officer, Jaitaran, who in turn, directed the Executive Officer, Jaitaran for taking necessary steps in the matter. It was also stated in the application that previously also the father of the petitioner tried to put a door in the western wall of the house but he was restrained to do so by the Municipal Board. It was thus, prayed that they are necessary party to the suit and they may be impleaded as party defendants to the suit.