IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRDESH:: HYDERABAD TUESDAY, THE FIFTEENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT:: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY C.R.P.No.3896 OF 2010 Between: Rolin Residency Owner’s Welfare Assocation, Rep. by its General Secretary Y.Praveen, Sanathnagar, Hyderabad. …Petitioner A n d Smt.V.Rambai and two others ..Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY C.R.P.No.3896 of 2010 ORDER: This civil revision petition is directed against the order dated 16-07-2010 in I.A.No.268 of 2010 in O.S.No.513 of 2010, on the file of the VI-Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, wherein the said application filed by the petitioner herein, third party to the suit, to get impleaded, was dismissed. 2. Heard both sides. Perused the record. 3. The petitioner herein is third party to the suit, which was filed by respondents 1 and 2 against the 3rd respondent-GHMC for permanent injunction. According to the petitioner, respondents 1 and 2 started making construction in the adjacent premises without leaving any space for set back as required under rules and in violation of the building rules and also causing obstruction to the petitioner’s right of enjoyment of air and light. It is stated that the petitioner-association gave a complaint to the municipal authorities regarding the alleged illegal construction by respondents 1 and 2 in violation of the building rules, but the municipal corporation has not initiated any action against the plaintiffs. On the other hand, the plaintiffs filed the suit against the Municipal Corporation for injunction. The petitioner alleges that GHMC is not taking any active interest to contest the said suit and resist the alleged illegal activities of the plaintiffs. The petitioner alleges that they obtained information from the municipal authorities under the Right to Information Act to the effect that the plaintiffs have constructed cellar plus 4 upper floors as against permitted stilt plus 2 upper floors and that the municipal authorities issued notice under Sections 461, 452 and 636 of the HMC Act and fixed 09-02-2010 for demolition of the illegal structures and at that juncture the plaintiffs obtained orders of stay. The petitioner-association, therefore, seeks to come on record as persons interested in protecting their right of air and light being the residents of the adjacent premises as according to them, the said right of enjoyment is being obstructed due to the alleged illegal constructions by the plaintiffs. The trial Court dismissed the said application observing that as the GHMC is contesting the suit, the petitioner herein is neither a necessary nor proper party to the proceedings. 4. The learned counsel for the respondents-plaintiffs would submit that the petitioner herein already filed a writ petition in W.P.No.9338 of 2010 and the same is pending. It is to be noted that the petitioner is an adjacent neighbour of the respondents-plaintiffs. Apart from the allegation that the construction made by the plaintiffs is in violation of the building rules and sanction plan, the petitioner is contending that the said construction is directly interfering with the petitioner’s enjoyment of right to air and light. The petitioner further alleges that the GHMC is not taking any active interest in contesting the suit which necessitated the petitioner to intervene by getting impleaded. The pendency of W.P.No.9338 of 2010 filed by the petitioner is no bar for impleadment of the petitioner in the suit, when once it is found that the petitioner is an interested party having a stake to ensure that the construction made by the plaintiffs is in accordance with the sanction plan and is not violative of any building rules. 5. In a decision in HIRANAND AND ORS. V. T.N.KAMBATI AND ORS[1], this Court held that the immediate neighbour is possessed of sufficient interest to see that the land kept for common purpose is not diverted for any other purpose. In the above case also an application was filed to implead the neighbours as parties in the suit filed by the petitioners therein against the municipal corporation and the original owner seeking declaration that the revised layout sanctioned was not valid and binding and for injunction restraining the municipal corporation from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the building situate in Plot No.18. The third parties who were sought to be impleaded were neighbours of Plot No.18 and according to them, the building was unauthorisedly constructed by the plaintiffs therein in the site which was marked for parking. The petition for amendment was allowed by the trial Court and the plaintiffs filed a revision contending that the neighbours were not proper or necessary parties. It was held that the proposed parties were directly affected with the relief prayed for in the suit and, therefore, they were permitted to be impleaded. 6. In view of the principles laid down in the above decision and having regard to the fact that the petitioners are the immediate neighbours who initiated the proceedings against the plaintiffs complaining the alleged violation of the building rules and sanctioned plan and being the persons directly affected by the relief that is sought for, they are held to be proper parties, though not necessary parties for the disposal of the suit. 7. In the circumstances, the impugned order, dismissing the application filed by the petitioner herein, is held liable to be set aside and is accordingly set aside. 8. In the result, the civil revision petition is allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. ____________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J 15th March, 2011 Lrkm [1] 1996(4) ALD 919