wp4746.11.odt 1/2 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. WRIT PETN. NO.4746/2011 Siddheshwar Panchappa Hawa -vs- Sunil Vishambarnath Tiwari and others ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Office notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's Orders. or directions and Registrar's orders. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Shri S. S. Dhengale, counsel for the petitioner. Shri K. D. Shukla, counsel for the respondent No.1. None for the respondent No.2. Mrs. Rashi Deshpande, AGP for the respondent No.3. CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK, J. DATE : 22.11.2011. By this petition, the petitioner impugns the order passed by the trial Court on 21/07/2011 rejecting an application filed by the petitioner under Order 1 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure for joining the petitioner as party defendant to the suit. The respondent No.1 is the original plaintiff. He had filed a suit for permanent injunction against the Nagpur Municipal Corporation as the Nagpur Municipal Corporation had issued a notice to the plaintiff to demolish certain alleged illegal construction made by the plaintiff. The plaintiff joined the Nagpur Municipal Corporation and the State of Maharashtra as party defendants to the suit. An application was filed by the petitioner for intervention in the suit as according to the defendant, he was one of the flat owners and wp4746.11.odt 2/2 he was also adversely affected by the illegal construction carried out by the plaintiff. The trial Court, however, by the impugned order dated 21/07/2011 rejected the application filed by the petitioner. The order dated 21/07/2011 is just and proper. The trial Court rightly held that the presence of the petitioner was not necessary for deciding the controversy between the parties. Moreover, the plaintiff was dominus litus and the petitioner could not have been joined as a party defendant against the wishes of the plaintiff. In case the petitioner was aggrieved by the illegal construction carried out by the respondent No.1 in the suit property, the petitioner was entitled to avail the other remedy open to the petitioner in law. At this juncture, it is informed to this Court by the learned counsel for the respondent No.1 that the petitioner has already filed a civil suit bearing Regular Civil Suit No.517/2011 for seeking action against the respondent No.1 and has also filed a complaint in the Consumer Forum. Since the order passed by the trial Court is just and proper, the same calls for no interference in exercise of the writ jurisdiction. The writ petition fails and is dismissed with no order as to costs. JUDGE KHUNTE