1 wp 7043-2010.sxw IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 7043 OF 2010 Jayram Pandu Gaikwad ..Petitioner vs. Kalyan-Dombivli Municipal Corporation & Anr. ..Respondents Mr.R.S. Datar for the Petitioner. CORAM : B.R. GAVAI, J DATED : FEBRUARY 9, 2011. P.C. : 1 By way of present petition, the petitioner challenges Order dated 13th August, 2010 vide which the application filed by the respondent no.2 - Society for impleading it as party defendant in a suit filed by the petitioner came to be allowed. 2 The plaintiff has filed the suit against the Corporation challenging the notice issued by the respondent-Corporation under the provisions of 2 wp 7043-2010.sxw Section 260 of the Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporation Act. In the said suit, an application came to be filed by respondent no.2 - society for impleading it as party defendant. The same is allowed. Hence, the present petition. 3 Shri Datar, learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner-plaintiff is a dominus litus and as such, respondent no.2 was thrust into his suit against his wishes. He further submits that the lis is only between the petitioner and the Corporation and order impugned is not sustainable in law. 4 The respondent no.2 has filed an application stating therein that the premises in respect of which the notice was issued by the Corporation were abutting the gate of the society on the western side. It is the contention of the society that the petitioner on the land belonging to the society had made an unauthorised permanent 3 wp 7043-2010.sxw construction from all the four sides and thereby causing an obstruction to the ingress and egress in the building occupied by the members of the society. Other allegation regarding assault on the office bearers of the society also has been made in the application. 5 Taking into consideration this aspect of the matter, the learned trial court has found that any order passed in the suit would affect the rights of the members of the society and as such, application has been rejected. 6 No doubt that the plaintiff is a dominus litus. However, under Order 1 Rule 10 of the CPC, the discretion is vested with the trial court to add the parties when it finds that for effective adjudication of a lis before it, the presence of such parties is either necessary or desirable. Respondent No.2 may not be necessary party but it cannot be said that it is not proper party. In 4 wp 7043-2010.sxw that view of the matter, no perversity is noticed in the order passed by the learned trial court to warrant interference in the extra ordinary jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 7 Petition is rejected. (B.R. GAVAI, J)