1 ssp IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.2398 OF 2010 Ashok Surajmal Lodha and others ...Petitioners vs. The Pune Muncipal Corporation and Ors. ...Respondents Mr.Dhananjay Lonkar for the petitioners None for the respondents CORAM :A.S.OKA,J. DATE : APRIL 1, 2010 P.C. 1 Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners. The petitioners are the original plaintiffs. The petitioners have filed a suit for declaration that the order of the Municipal Corporation revoking the sanctioned lay out of the petitioners property is void ab-initio. A prayer for injunction is made for restraining the Municipal Corporation from acting upon the order under section 258 of the Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporation Act,1949. The case of the petitioners is that though Municipal Corporation had earlier sanctioned the lay out in respect of their property, the Municipal Corporation subsequently purported to revoke the said lay out. 2 By the impugned order, a third party Shri Chandrakant Tukaram Bharekar has been directed to be impleaded as a party defendant. 3 The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that third party is neither a necessary nor a proper party to the suit as the only challenge in the suit is to the action of the Municipal Corporation of revoking the sanctioned lay out. 2 4 After considering the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner, I find that there is no merit in the petition. The trial Court has noted the admitted position that the suit property and the property of the third party are adjacent to each other. The contention of the third party is that in the lay out their own property, the petitioners had shown a road passing through the property of the said third party. The contention of the petitioners is that though the third party is the owner of that portion, the petitioners are in possession thereof. Thus, the third party is certainly a proper party to the suit in as much as if the petitioners succeed in obtaining decree, interests of the third party will be directly affected. No case is made out for interference in writ jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Writ Petition is rejected. JUDGE