1 WP No.5221.11 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO. 5221 OF 2011 Khairunissa Begum W/o Tajouddin ..PETITIONER. VERSUS The Chief Officer, Municipal Council, Khultabad Dist. Aurangabad and another ..RESPONDENTS ... Mr. A.S. Deshpande, Advocate for petitioner CORAM :- S.V. GANGAPURWALA JJ. DATE:- 18th July, 2011. PER COURT: The petitioner is original plaintiff, who has filed a suit for declaration regarding the notice issued by the Municipal Council as illegal, null and void, and also for injunction restraining the Municipal Council from interfering in her possession and from removing 2 WP No.5221.11 iron gate. 2. During the pendency of the suit present respondent No. 2 filed an application for impleading her as party. The Trial Court allowed the application of respondent No. 2. Being aggrieved by the same, the present writ petition is filed. 3. Shri A.S. Deshpande, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner being the plaintiff, is dominus litis of her case and she has not sought any relief against the present respondent No. 2. As no relief is sought against the present respondent No. 2, respondent No. 2 is not necessary party. The defendant cannot be thrusted upon the plaintiff. The learned counsel further contends that if the respondent No.2 claims any independent right, she has got remedy to file appropriate proceedings. The learned counsel further contends that even in reply given to the notice of the Municipal Council, the petitioner had made it clear that gate fixed is in place of old one and permission is not 3 WP No.5221.11 required to be taken to that effect. The learned counsel further contends that the Court below has erroneously allowed the application of the respondent No. 2. 4. The proposition put-forth by Shri Deshpande, learned counsel that the petitioner is dominus litis of her case and it is choice of the plaintiff regarding the parties to be made, is not disputed. 5. The respondent No. 2 has claimed herself to be the co-owner of the suit property. The fact that she is co-owner, has not been denied by the plaintiff. As such, prima facie the contention of the respondent No. 2 of she being the co-owner, is not denied. 6. It is on the complaint made by the respondent No. 2, the action is initiated by the respondent No. 1. Even in the plaint the petitioner more particularly in para No. 13 has averred that the notice has been issued by the respondent No. 1 in collusion with the respondent 4 WP No.5221.11 No. 2. 7. When the allegations are made against the respondent No. 2 in the plaint itself and when the respondent No. 2 claims to be co-owner of the property having interest in the property, even if assuming that the respondent No. 2 is not necessary party, still she can be termed as proper party. 8. The Judgment of the learned Single Judge of this Court in a case of Francisco Rodrigues and another V. Angelica Rebello, reported in 2010(6) Mh. L.J. 972 relied upon by the learned counsel would be of no avail to the petitioner, in view of the fact that in the said case suit was for simplicitor injunction restraining the defendant therein from using the path way from doing any construction work thereon. In the present case, the complaint is made by the respondent No. 2, on whose complaint the respondent No. 1 has issued notice which is challenged in the suit. 5 WP No.5221.11 9. In view of the conspectus in the matter, the trial Court has properly dealt with the same and in the supervisory jurisdiction of this Court no interference is called for. In the result, the writ Petition is dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs. [S.V. GANGAPURWALA, J ] SDM*July11