-: 1 :- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE WRIT PETITION NO.6966 OF 2007 M/s.V. Build : Petitioner (Orig.Plaintiff) V/s. Palghar Municipal Council & Anr. : Respondents ... Mr.S.A.Sawant for the petitioner. Mr.Rahul Kate for respondent no.2. ... CORAM : S.A.BOBDE, J. DATE : JANUARY 29, 2008. P.C. 1. Rule, returnable forthwith. Mr.Kate waives service for the respondent no.2. Heard by consent. 2. The petitioner has challenged the order dated 9.8.2007 by which the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Palghar, has joined the respondent no.2 as a party to the petitioner’s suit against Palghar Municipal Council. The petitioner has filed the suit for challenging a notice issued by Palghar Municipal Council for demolishing the structure and plinth of the proposed building on the suit -: 2 :- property. Apparently, the respondent no.2 had made a complaint to the Municipal Council before the issue of such notice. This fact seems to have been weighed with the Court for allowing the respondent no.2 to be joined as a party to the suit. 3. Having considered the matter, it is clear that the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, has misdirected himself in law. Merely because the respondent no.2 has made a complaint, it cannot be said of him that the petitioner’s suit cannot be finally and effectively adjudicated without his presence. The complaint may have been made by not only the respondent no.2, but many other neighbours or the Council may have issued a notice on the basis of its own inspection. Merely because it is stated that the Council has acted on the neighbour’s complaint, that person cannot be said to have become a necessary or proper party. Permitting this may open a floodgate to such applications for joinder of parties. 4. The learned trial Court appears to have relied on a decision in AIR 1985 Delhi 293 wherein the Delhi High Court upheld the right of a neighbour to get an injunction restraining a party from further raising an unauthorised construction. The present suit is not such a suit. -: 3 :- 5. In this view of the matter, the Writ Petition is allowed. The impugned order is set aside and the rule is made absolute. There shall be no order as to costs. S.A. BOBDE, J.