1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO.213 OF 2011 (DR. MRS. NAYANTARA DURGADAS VASUDEO..VS.. NAGPUR 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 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Mrs. S.R. Matta & Mr. M. Mourya, Advocates for Petitioner. CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK, J. DATE : JANUARY 20, 2011. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. By this petition the petitioner impugns the order passed by the trial Court on 03.12.2010 allowing an application filed by the respondent No.2 for joining him as party defendant (Intervenor) in the suit and rejecting an application filed by the petitioner for rejecting that application filed by respondent No.2. 3. The petitioner is the original plaintiff. The petitioner has challenged the action of respondent No.1 Nagpur Municipal Corporation on the ground that the notice issued by the Corporation to the plaintiff under Section 53(1) of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act was illegal and was liable to be set aside. According to the plaintiff/ petitioner, she had not made any illegal construction on the suit property and the Municipal Corporation had wrongly relied on a complaint given by her brother Rajendra Choudhari, respondent No.2 to this petition. 2 4. During the pendency of the suit the respondent No.2 filed an application under Order 1 Rule 10(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure for joining him as party defendant. It was the case of respondent No.2 that the plaintiff was his sister and the Municipal Corporation had initiated action against the plaintiff on the basis of the complaint made by respondent No.2 as the plaintiff had made an illegal construction on the suit land. It was the case of respondent No.2 in the application that the suit property was the ancestral property belonging to Late Vishwanath Choudhari father of the plaintiff and respondent No.2. It was also stated by respondent No.2 in the application that the plaintiff had filed a suit against respondent No.2 and others for partition and separate possession of the share in some other properties. 5. The trial Court on hearing the learned counsel for the parties allowed the application filed by the respondent No.2 under Order 1 Rule 10(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure. The Court considered the fact that the plaintiff had herself mentioned in paragraph 11 of the plaint that the defendant corporation had relied on a complaint made by the respondent No.2 and had, therefore, issued notice under Section 53(1) of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act. The trial Court held that respondent No.2 had stated that the property was his ancestral property and any order in the suit may have caused prejudice to the respondent No.2. The Court held that in view of the question raised by respondent No.2 as regards the illegal construction raised by the plaintiff over the ancestral property, it was necessary to join the respondent No.2 as party defendant for an effective adjudication of the issues involved in the suit. The order passed by the trial Court on 03.12.2010 appears to be just 3 and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case. The judgment reported in 1998(1) Mh.L.J. 410 (Eknath Malu Vs. State of Mah.) cannot be made applicable to the facts of this case as here the objector before respondent No.1 Nagpur Municipal Corporation was the real brother of the plaintiff and he had claimed that the property in question was his ancestral property. So also the ratio laid down in the judgment reported in 2010 (5) ALL MR 516 (Francisco Rodrigues Vs. Angelica Rebello) and relied on by the counsel for the petitioner is inapplicable to the facts for the case. Hence, for the reasons aforesaid, the writ petition is dismissed with no order as to costs. JUDGE RR..