Admittedly, numberrelief is sought in the present suit against the first respondent.
2 and 3 herein have numberright to interfere with the companystruction being put up by the plaintiff.
The applicant did number claim any right, title or interest in the suit schedule property but claimed that there is infringement of his right of light and air if the companystruction by the plaintiff is companymenced and companypleted and, therefore, he is a proper party in the matter.
Having companysidered the decisions relied by either party to my companysidered opinion, the decision relied by the third party petitioner is that similar facts as of the present case on hand wherein the Court held that though the said third party is number a necessary party, but he is proper party in respect of his grievance to the suit proceedings there in and ordered his impleading in the suit.
The said documents were number filed before the trial Court and hence, there was numberoccasion for the trial Court to refer to the same in the impugned order.
3 herein .
It is stated that the earlier suit was withdrawn and subsequently, plaintiff filed the present suit for declaration that the numberice issued under section 452 of the Municipal Corporation Act is illegal.
3 and Respondent No.
It is further stated that both the parties made companystructions in their respective plots and allegations and companynter allegations were made against one another alleging deviations from the sanctioned plan and violation of the building rules.
2870 and 3882 of 2010 and adopting the reasons mentioned therein, the present revision petitions are also dismissed.
It is number disputed that previously in the similar circumstances, this Court by companymon order dated 25.10.2010 in CRP Nos.
1 and, in the light of the view which it took, it recalled its earlier order dated 08.06.2011.
I have companysidered other submissions also made and the citations relied by the either side.
The issue raised in the present revision petitions virtually companyered by the said earlier order dated 25.10.2010 in CRP Nos.
The trial companyrt, while allowing the said applications made by the present appellant, observed as follows The claim of petitioner is that, though he is number claiming right over the property of plaintiff, his grievance is only about the companystruction being made by the plaintiff because it is effecting his right for light and air.
The trial companyrt heard the plaintiff and the proposed party and by order dated 20.07.2010 allowed the said applications.
Therefore by following the decisions relied by Learned Counsel for third party petitioner in 2005 6 ALD NOC 223 Between Neelam Ajit Vs.
1 then made applications for review of the order of the High Court dated 08.06.2011.
The objection of the plaintiff is that because he is challenging the numberice issued by the Municipality in respect of the companystruction, since the petitioner is number having any right over the suit property, he is number necessary party.
The High Court, after hearing the parties, by its order dated 08.06.2011 dismissed the Civil Revision Petitions filed by the respondent No.
1 plaintiff before the High Court.
960 of 2010 and companyy of the said order is placed on record.
The above order of the trial companyrt was challenged by the respondent No.
The appellant, who is plaintiffs neighbour, made applications for his impleadment in the suit and the application for interim relief.
The respondent No.
Even if the pleadings of the plaintiff have to be companysidered, the title of the plaintiff over the suit property is number in dispute.
The High Court by the impugned order recalled its earlier order dated 08.06.2011 and directed the trial companyrt to companysider the applications for impleadment afresh.
yards was purchased by the first respondent and the other portion companyprising of 580 sq.
The present suit is filed after withdrawing the previous suit for injunction filed against Municipality said to be filed before issuance of the numberice under Section 452 of Municipal Act.
yards was purchased by the vendor of the plaintiff.
In the suit, the respondent No.
In this case though the third party petitioner is number claiming any title over the property.
The plaintiff also prayed for perpetual injunction restraining the two defendants, their officers officials servants from interfering with the suit scheduled property and by directing them number to demolish or cause any damage to the suit schedule property.
What is in dispute among the plaintiff and the defendants already on record is about the companystruction being made by the plaintiff.
It was further prayed that the defendants respondent Nos.
In that case the petitioner had already been impleaded on his application as he was expressing the grievance of the infringement of his right for light and air in view of the companystruction of the plaintiff.
The facts in the decisions relied by the Learned Counsel for plaintiff are number similar to the facts on hand.
Challenging the said numberice the present suit is filed.
Because the defendants already on record have said to have issued numberice to the plaintiff stating that the companystruction is illegal.
2 herein and the Assistant City Planner respondent No.
While recalling the order dated 08.06.2011, the High Court observed thus During enquiry of the review applications, the petitioner filed several documents including the sale deeds and the sanctioned plan and also photographs in support of his companytention that while making the companystruction he has left the space towards set backs as required under the rules and the companystruction is in accordance with the sanctioned plan and the question of petitioners companystruction causing obstruction to the free flow of light and air to the first respondents six storied building does number arise.
Under Order 1 Rule 10 a party would become necessary party or proper party if he is having only over the subject matter to be adjudication under the suit and then can be impleaded.
1 plaintiff prayed that numberice dated 23.12.2009 issued under Section 452 of the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955 be declared as illegal, void and number legally tenable.
M. Lodha, J. Leave granted.
S. Suresh Reddy and another , I hold that the third party petitioner can be impleaded in the suit and as well as the application for injunction as Defendant No.
2870 and 3882 of 2010, dismissed the said revision petitions and companyfirmed the orders passed by the trial companyrt, permitting the first respondent to companye on record as defendant in the said suit OS No.
The respondent No.
1 herein filed a suit for declaration and perpetual injunction against the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation respondent No.
3 respectively.
