HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD C.R.P.No. 774 of 2007 Date: 05-08-2010 Between: Koya Harish ………….. Petitioner and Gudivada Bharath Mohan and others ………. Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD C.R.P.No. 774 of 2007 ORDER: The Civil Revision Petition is directed against the order in I.A.No.1085 of 2006 in O.S.No.588 of 2006 on the file of the III Additional Junior Civil Judge’s Court, Guntur, dated 16-11-2006. 2. The factual background of the dispute is that the revision petitioner filed the suit challenging the action proposed to be taken in pursuance of the order in Rc.No.E1/65/2006 of the fourth respondent herein alleging the construction, being made by the revision petitioner, to be in violation of the statutory building Rules in respect of the construction of the third floor not leaving any space as required, and covering 63.65% of the area with constructions. In the said suit, the respondents 1 to 3 herein sought themselves to be impleaded through I.A.No.1085 of 2006 claiming that they are the adjoining neighbours to the proposed construction and the construction in violation of the building Rules is dangerous and harmful and they should be impleaded as the most affected parties due to the construction who also issued a registered notice to the municipality against permitting such unauthorized construction. The plaintiff resisted the request contending that the construction of the building was as per the approved plan and was completed without violation of any of the building Rules and the respondents 1 to 3 herein, having not raised any objection from the commencement till the completion of the construction, have no locus standi to attempt to come on record. 3. The trial Court passed the impugned order observing that the demolition notice, dated 28-02-2006 is in question in the suit and the material allegations in the plaint show that the construction of a shelter on the top of the third floor designed by an Architect was completed without waiting for the approval of the Urban Development Authority. Referring to the decision reported in SARVINDER SINGH v. DALIP SINGH [1] about necessary and proper parties, the trial Court opined that though the respondents 1 to 3 herein are not necessary parties, they are proper parties whose presence will help in effective and complete adjudication of all the disputes between the parties, more so when they are apprehending danger and harm due to the construction in violation of the building Rules. 4. The order directing the impleadment of respondents 1 to 3 herein is under challenge in this revision again reiterating that they are neither necessary nor proper parties and their presence only complicates the issue. 5. Sri G. Ramachandra Rao, learned counsel representing Sri G. Peddababu, learned counsel for the revision petitioner, and Sri P. Vijaya Kiran, learned counsel for respondents 1 to 3 are heard and none entered appearance on behalf of respondents 4 and 5. 6. The point for consideration is whether respondents 1 to 3 herein could have been added as proper parties to the suit? 7. Sri P. Vijaya Kiran, learned counsel for respondents 1 to 3 invited the attention of this Court to BHAGWANDAS v. HARISH CHETWAL [2], wherein it was observed that a neighbour, who complained of infraction of his right, has a right to invoke jurisdiction of the civil Court to enforce the obligations and duties cast on the municipal corporation to remove the structures constructed in contravention of the statutory provisions and those persons are proper parties, even if not necessary parties, in order to effectually adjudicate the question involved in the suit. 8. The learned counsel has also relied on HIRANAND v. T.M. KAMBATI [3], wherein His Lordship Sri Justice P. Venkatarama Reddi (as His Lordship then was) was following the earlier decision of the Apex Court in RAMESH H. KUNDANMAL v. MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF GREATER BOMBAY [4], and observed that where the persons requesting to be brought on record will be directly affected by the reliefs sought for by the plaintiffs in the suit and where the immediate neighbours possessed sufficient interest to see that the land kept for a common purpose is not diverted for any other purpose, they have to be impleaded. His Lordship was also following the decision of a Division Bench of this Court in BHAGWANDAS’s case (2 supra). 9. Similarly in NEELAM AJIT v. V. SURESH REDDY [5], a learned Judge of this Court was following the same decision of the Division Bench of this Court in BHAGAWANDAS’s case (2 supra) and considered a similarly situated person to be a proper, if not a necessary party. 10. In MOHD. MAQSOOL ALI v. ABUL KHAIR KHAN [6] also, another learned Judge of this Court opined that persons so situated will be proper parties, even if not necessary parties, to enable factual adjudication of the question involved in the suit. 11. The claim of the respondents 1 to 3 herein that they are immediate neighbours to the property in question, where the construction is being proceeded with, is not in dispute and if so, any construction in violation of the building Rules by the plaintiff-revision petitioner is capable of being claimed by the respondents 1 to 3 herein as adversely affecting their rights and interests in their own properties. 12. However, Sri G. Ramachandra Rao, learned counsel for the revision petitioner, brought to notice the affidavit filed on behalf of respondents 1 to 3 herein in support of C.R.P.M.P. No.3823 of 2007 wherein the respondents 1 to 3 herein made reference to their substantial rights being involved in the suit and their easementary rights being affected, which will be beyond the scope of the suit between him and the urban development authority and the municipal corporation. The objection has but to be sustained and any disputes between the plaintiff-revision petitioner and respondents 1 to 3 herein involving any easementary rights cannot form the subject matter of the adjudication in the present suit and if the parties so desire, they can take recourse to appropriate legal proceedings in accordance with law in respect of the enforcement or assertion of any such easementary rights. The scope of the suit should be confined to the contents of the order, dated 28-02-2006 in Rc.No.E1/65/2006 of the Urban Development Authority and consideration of the alleged violation of the statutory building Rules as specified in the said order. It is suffice to clarify that the scope of the suit shall not be expanded in any other manner in consequence of impleading respondents 1 to 3 herein and subject to that observation, the Civil Revision Petition has to fail. 13. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed without costs and the trial Court shall keep in view the observations made in this order in considering and deciding the suit. ____________________ G. BHAVANI PRASAD, J Date: 05-08-2010 YCR [1] 1996 (7) SUPREME 210 [2] 1983 ALT 78 SHORT NOTES [3] 1997 (1) ALT 355 [4] 1992 (2) SCC 524 [5] 2005 (5) ALT 471 [6] 2009 (5) ALD 139