1 WP 3952.2011 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 3952 OF 2011 Office Notes,Office Memoranda of Coram,appearances, Court's orders or directions and Registrar's orders Court's or Judge's orders Mr.A.M.Gholap ,Advocate for the Petitioner. Mr. R.R.Mantri, Advocate holding for Mr. N.C.Garud, Advocate for the respondent. .......................... CORAM : S.V. GANGAPURWALA, J. DATE : 09/06/2011 PER COURT : 1. The present respondent no. 1 has filed Suit challenging the notice issued by the Municipal Corporation dated 9/2/2011, whereby the plaintiff was directed to demolish the construction as stated in the notice. During the pendency of the said Suit, the present petitioner filed an application purportedly under Order I Rule 10 ( 2 ) of the Code of Civil Procedure for adding him as a party. The said application came to be rejected. Aggrieved thereby, the present petition has been filed. 2. Mr. Gholap, the learned counsel for the 2 WP 3952.2011 petitioner submits that the trial court while rejecting the application has failed to exercise the jurisdiction vested in it. The petitioner even if was not a necessary party, is a proper party. According to the learned counsel, the notice impugned in the Suit was issued pursuant to the order dated 4/5/2010 passed by the Municipal Corporation pursuant to the complaint made by the petitioner. Actually, the plaintiff in all fairness should have added the present petitioner as a party. The learned counsel contends that the petitioner would assist the Court in arriving at just conclusion. It is further contended that the petitioner has apprehension that the defendant would collude with the plaintiff. In such eventuality, the petitioner would be in a position to bring forth to the notice of the Court the real state of affairs. According to the learned counsel, the provisions of Order I Rule 10 ( 2 ) of the Code of Civil Procedure is meant for such purpose only. Even the Court sou motu could have added the petitioner as party being the proper party. 3. Mr. Mantri, the learned counsel for the plaintiff supports the impugned order and submits that the plaintiff is the dominus litis to his case and the person who is not necessary party, can not be thrusted upon the plaintiff. The petitioner has no 3 WP 3952.2011 interest in the subject matter. 4. The proposition that the plaintiff is the dominus litis of his case, need not be dilated. Same is the settled proposition. The scope of the Suit is challenge to the notice dated 9/2/2011 issued by the Municipal Corporation directing the petitioner to demolish the construction as is spelt out in the said notice. The plaintiff is not seeking any relief against the petitioner. The petitioner is not the necessary party. No right to relief is claimed against the petitioner. More over, no injury can be said to be caused to the petitioner in the dictum that would be given in the Suit. The apprehension that the defendant would collude with the plaintiff, at this stage, is mis-placed. It can not be presumed that the defendant, an autonomous body, would indulge in such acts. Only because, earlier, the complaint was filed, of which the cognizance was taken by the Municipal Corporation, would not ipso-facto give a right to the petitioner for being added as a party. If at all, the apprehension of the petitioner about the collusion between the plaintiff and the defendant comes true, then the petitioner has got remedies under law. The petitioner being not the necessary party to the litigation, could not have been added as of right. The trial Court in its discretion has 4 WP 3952.2011 thought it fit that the petitioner is not required to be added as a party. The said discretion can not be said to be exercised in an unreasonable manner. 5. In view of the above, the Writ Petition is dismissed, however with no order as to costs. [ S.V. GANGAPURWALA,J. ] KNP/WP 3952.2011