(1) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, AURANGABAD BENCH, AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO. 10789 OF 2010 Shaikh Javed s/o. Shaikh Sattar, Age : 43 years, Occupation : Business, R/o. Takiya Mohalla, Manwat, Taluka : Manwat, District : Parbhani. .. Petitioner. versus 1. The Chief Officer, Municipal Council, Manwat, Taluka : Manwat, District : Parbhani. 2. Mussa s/o. Abdul Rashid, Age : 61 years, Occupation : Motor Mechanic, R/o. Manwath, at present Sailu, Taluka : Sailu, District : Parbhani. 3. Abdul Jalil s/o. Rashid, Age : 53 years, Occupation : Labour, R/o. Takiya Mohalla, Manwat, Taluka : Manwath, District : Parbhani. (2) 4. Abdul Samad s/o. Abdul Rashid, Age : 50 years, Occupation : Labour, R/o. Takiya Mohalla, Manwath, Taluka : Manwath, District : Parbhani. 5. Abdul Kadir s/o. Abdul Rashid, Age : 42 years, Occupation : Labour, R/o. Takiya Mohalla, Manwath, Taluka : Manwath, District : Parbhani. 6. Abdul Isaq s/o. Abdul Rashid, Age : 43 years, Occupation : Labour, R/o. Takiya Mohalla, Manwath, Taluka : Manwath, District : Parbhani. 7. Sugrabi w/o. Syeed Noor, Age : 63 years, Occupation : Household, R/o. Qureshi Mohalla, Jintur, Taluka : Jintur, District : Parbhani. 8. Mahamadabi w/o. Syeed Amir, Age : 62 years, Occupation : Household, R/o. Village Limba, Taluka : Pathri, District : Parbhani. .. Respondents. ....................... (3) Mr. J.M. Murkute, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. M.P. Tripathi, Advocate, for respondent no.1. Mr. P.N. Kalani, Advocate, for respondent nos.2 to 8. ........................ CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATE : 28TH JANUARY 2011 ORAL JUDGMENT : 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Taken up for final hearing by consent of parties. 2. The respondents have filed suit for declaring notice issued by the Municipal Council as illegal and bad. In the suit, present petitioner sought his impleadment under Order I Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, contending that construction of their house by the respondents is encroachment on municipal pipe line. The application has been rejected by the trial court. (4) 3. After the learned Counsel appearing for respondent nos.2 to 8, Mr. P.N. Kalani, was heard, after realizing inclination of the Court, he sought time to file reply. The request was rejected. 4. Mr. J.M. Murkute, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, has pointed out that the matter has proceeded ex parte against the Municipal Council. 5. Mr. M.P. Tripathi, learned Counsel appearing for respondent no.1 / Municipal Council, has stated that the Municipal Council has filed appropriate application for reopening of the controversy seeking leave to file written statement. 6. Mr. P.N. Kalani, learned Counsel appearing for respondent nos.2 to 8 asserts that the suit is already closed for judgment. 7. I find that the suit is of the year 2010. For one reason or the other, the Municipal Council could not prosecute the matter diligently. The effort of the petitioner is to demonstrate that the plaintiffs before the trial court have encroached upon a (5) municipal pipe line. Admittedly, he made several complaints to the Municipal Council. 8. The trial court has misdirected the entire consideration. When the Municipal Council is not diligently taking care of litigation, it would have been proper that a person like the petitioner should have been permitted to assist the court in the matter. 9. Hence, without observing anything on merits i.e. about the nature of possession of respondent nos.2 to 8 or then about the mode and manner in which the Municipal Council has conducted the matter, I am inclined to allow the petition. 10. In the result, the petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 31st August 2010, passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Manwat, below Exhibit 16, in Regular Civil Suit No. 5/2010, is quashed and set aside. The prayer made in the application Exhibit 16 is granted. The respondent nos.2 to 8 shall implead the petitioner as party defendant no.2. Thereafter, trial court shall proceed further in accordance with law. (6) 11. Rule is made absolute accordingly. In the circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs. ( B.P. DHARMADHIKARI ) JUDGE ......................... bgp/wp10789