IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.R. No. 2848 of 2011 Date of decision: 22.7.2011 Vijay Kumar Arora … Petitioner versus Dr.Pardeep Bhatia … Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ARVIND KUMAR Present: Mr. Namit Khurana, Advocate, for Mr. Harkesh Manuja, Advocate, for the petitioner ... ARVIND KUMAR, J: A suit for mandatory injunction titled Dr. Pardeep Bhatia v. Municipal Council, Karnal, is pending wherein directions have been sought to the defendant-Municipal Council to accept the licence for obtaining the compounding of Chhajja raised by the plaintiff on the basis of resolution No.7 of 2002 passed by the defendants themselves and for restraining them from demolishing the Chhajja in question. The present petitioner filed an application under Order 1 rule 10, Code of Civil Procedure, stating that the plaintiff has raised construction of a hospital and is running it in commercial manner whereas the site plan approved is for residential purpose and has also raised a Chhajja after having made encroachment on the Municipal Council land and he may get the matter compounded for the said violation in collusion with the defendant- Municipal Council. The said application has been dismissed vide the impugned order dated 2.12.2010 passed by the Civil Judge(Junior Division), Karnal. Hence, this revision. Heard. The law is well settled that the plaintiff is a dominus-litis and as such, no person should be impleaded as a party to the suit whom the plaintiff opposes. The very nature of the suit is only against the Municipal Council. No claim has been sought against the petitioner. It cannot be C.R. No. 2848 of 2011 -2- presumed that the Municipal Council is in collusion with the plaintiff and the trial Court has rightly held that the applicant has no locus-standi to maintain the present application as he is not affected by the Chhajja raised by the plaintiff and if any illegal encroachment has been made over the land belonging to the Municipal Council, Karnal, it is for the Municipal Council, Karnal, to take appropriate action against the same. There is no infirmity in the impugned order. No interference is called for. The revision petition is dismissed. July 22, 2011 ( ARVIND KUMAR ) JS JUDGE