1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO.1264 OF 2011 (MAHADEO K. KATKAR...VS.. AKOLA MUNICIPAL CORPORATION & ANR.) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Mr. A.S. Chandurkar, Advocate for Petitioner. CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK, J. DATE : MARCH 14, 2011. On hearing the leaned counsel for the petitioner and on perusal of the impugned order dated 14.02.2011, it appears that the trial Court was perfectly justified in allowing the application filed by respondent No.2 under Order I Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure for impleading him as a party to the suit. It is necessary to note that a suit was filed by the petitioner for partition and separate possession of his share in the suit properties. During the pendency of that suit the brother of the petitioner sold one of the suit properties to the applicant/ respondent No.2. In those proceedings, respondent No.2 was joined as party in the appeal. The present suit was filed by the petitioner against Akola Municipal Corporation seeking permanent injunction restraining the Corporation from permitting respondent No.2/ applicant from making any construction or development over the suit property. Since the respondent No.2 was not joined as party to the civil suit he moved an application under Order I Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Though the application was strongly opposed by the petitioner, the trial Court, by the impugned order dated 14.02.2011 allowed the application filed by the respondent No.2 and permitted his joinder as party defendant. 2 The trial Court held and rightly so that the respondent No.2 would have been directly affected by the prayer made by the petitioner in the present suit. The trial Court rightly held that the respondent No.2 was not only a proper party but necessary party to the suit as by instituting the present suit the petitioner was seeking a permanent injunction restraining the Corporation from permitting the respondent No.2 from making any construction over the suit property. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the trial Court was perfectly justified in holding that respondent No.2 was a necessary party to the civil suit. The order passed by the trial Court does not suffer from any error and hence, the writ petition is dismissed with no order as to costs. JUDGE RR..