1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 484 OF 2008 Amzad Khan Lodhi.......Applicant. versus The Mun.Corpn. For Gr. Mumbai & anr........ Respondents. Mr. S.K. Dube for the Applicant Mr. R.R. Mishra for the Respondent No.2. CORAM; A.P. DESHPANDE, J. DATED; 27TH AUGUST, 2008. P.C.: 1. The order passed by the City Civil Court permitting impleadment of applicant who is respondent no. 2 in this revision has given rise for filing of the present revision. The respondent no.2 herein moved an application under Order 1 Rule 10 of Civil Procedure Code for impleading him as defendant no.2 by contending that he is a necessary party. According to the learned counsel for respondent no.2, the second respondent had filed a Writ Petition in the High Court making a greivance about illegal and unauthorised construction carried out by the present applicant over the terrace where the present applicant and 2 respondent no.2 are occupying adjecent flats. Flat no.6 is owned and possessed by the respondent no.2 whereas flat no.5 is owned and possessed by the applicant. In the said Writ Petition, the Division Bench of this Court passed an order directing the Corporation to consider the Writ Petition as a representation and taken an action in accordance with the law. Pursuant to the said order the Corporation initiated the proceedings and issued a notice under section 351 of the Act. Issuance of the notice under section 351 has given rise for a cause to the petitioner to file the suit. 2. In the above factual matrix, the Court below has found the presence of respondent no.2 before the Court to be necessary for proper, complete and effective adjudication of the issues in the suit and thus allowed the application. It is obvious that no prejudice as such to the plaintiff in the suit can be caused by impleadment of the respondent no.2. If not a necessary party, respondent no.2 is a proper party and his presence before the court below would facilitate complete and effective adjudication of the issues involved. 3. Perused the order. The same does not call for any interference. In the result the Civil Revision Application is dismissed. 3 (A.P. DESHPANDE, J.)