C.R. No. 2484 of 2010 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.R. No. 2484 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision: 19.04.2010 Dilbag Singh Dahiya and another .....Petitioners Versus Dayanand Dahiya and others ....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD K.SHARMA Present:- Mr. Saurabh Dalal, Advocate, for the petitioners. VINOD K.SHARMA, J. (ORAL) This revision petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, is directed against the order dated 31.3.2010, passed by the learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Rohtak, vide which the application moved by the petitioners under Order 1 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, for impleading the Municipal Council, Rohtak, as party to the suit, has been ordered to be dismissed. The plaintiff/petitioners filed a suit for permanent injunction against the defendant/respondents claiming the street to be a private street of the parties. Prayer was made that the defendant/respondents be restrained from making any alteration, raising chajja or level of the street in violation of the agreement said to have been executed between the parties. The learned trial Court dismissed the application primarily on the ground, that in a suit for permanent injunction against the private party, the Municipal Corporation/Municipal Council could not be impleaded as a party. It was also held by the learned trial Court, that in case the application is allowed, it will result in de novo trial, as the case was at the stage of evidence of the defendant/respondents. C.R. No. 2484 of 2010 (O&M) -2- The learned counsel for the petitioners challenges the impugned order primarily on the ground that subsequent to the attempts made by the defendant/respondents, now the Municipal Corporation/Municipal Concil, Rohtak, is trying to raise the level of the street and, therefore, was a necessary and proper party for adjudication of the case. On consideration, I find no force in the contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners. The suit filed by the petitioners was a personal dispute between the brothers, in which the Municipal Corporation/Municipal Council has no role to play nor it can be said that the Municipal Corporation/Municipal Council was acting under the advice or order of the defendant/respondents. The Municipal Committee is to act as per the Act and Rules framed under the Municipal Corporation Act, and the remedies are available against the Municipal Corporation/Municipal Council under the Act. The learned trial Court, therefore, was right in holding that the Municipal Corporation/Municipal Committee cannot be held to be necessary or proper party to the suit for injunction arising out of private dispute. No ground is made out to interfere with the order passed by the learned trial Court, in exercise of revisional jurisdiction. No merit. Dismissed. (Vinod K. Sharma) April 19, 2010 Judge R.S.