1 wp1193.11.sxw IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Writ Petition No. 1193 of 2011 Alamgir Ali Mohammad Malkani & anr. ... Petitioners v/s. Anwar Mohammed Bux Khan & ors. ... Respondents Mr. A.A. Siddique and assoc. for the petitioners. Mr. Ketan A. Chothani for respondent no. 2. Mr. Shoaib I.Menon for respondent no. 1. CORAM:- B.R. GAVAI, J DATED :- MARCH 29, 2011. P.C. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. 2. Heard by consent. 3. By way of present petition the petitioner challenges the order dated 4th December, 2010 vide which the learned trial Judge has rejected the 2 wp1193.11.sxw application filed by the present petitioner for impleading him as a party defendant in the suit filed by the respondent no. 1 against respondents 2 and 3. 4. The respondent no. 1 has put up the hoarding on the basis of the alleged lease granted in his favour by the respondent no. 2. However, it appears that the present petitioners had complained with the respondent no. 3 Municipal Corporation regarding such a hoarding and as such the Municipal Corporation has issued the show-cause notice calling upon the plaintiff to show-cause as to why the license issued should not be revoked. Challenging the said show-cause notice, a suit came to be filed by the respondent no. 1 herein against the respondents 2 and 3. In the said suit, an application came to be filed by the present petitioner for impleading him as a party defendant. The same is rejected. Hence, the present petition. 5. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that since the notice challenged in the suit is at the instance of the petitioner, the petitioner was a necessary party and as such the learned trial Court ought to have allowed the application. 3 wp1193.11.sxw 6. The learned Counsel for the respondent no. 1-plaintiff vehemently opposes the petition. He submits that plaintiff is dominous litus and a party cannot be imposed against wishes of the plaintiff. He further submits that suit of the present petitioner cannot be permitted to made a play ground for the petitioner and the defendant no. 1 to settle their dispute. The learned Counsel relies on the judgment of Apex Court in the case of Ramesh Hirachand Kundanmal v/s. Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay & ors. Reported in 1992 (3) Bom. C.R. 110. 7. No doubt that the plaintiff is a dominous litus and it is normally at his desire as to who should be impleaded in the suit. However, under Order 1 Rule 10, the Court is enjoined with a discretion to implead a party whose presence is found just and proper for adjudication of the dispute before the Court. Insofar as the judgment on which the learned Counsel for the respondent relies in the case of Ramesh (supra) is concerned, the Apex Court has held that person intending to join must be directly or legally interested in the action. 8. In the present case, undisputedly, the show-cause notice which is a subject matter of challenge in the suit has been issued by the respondent no. 4 wp1193.11.sxw 3 Corporation at the instance of the present petitioner. In that view of the matter, I find that though the petitioner may not be a necessary party but the petitioner be certainly a proper party in the suit filed by the respondent no. 1 plaintiff. 9. In that view of the matter, I am not inclined to allow the petition. Rule is made absolute in terms of prayer clause (a). However, in the facts and circumstances, no order as to costs. (B.R. GAVAI, J)