4229 of 1989 under Article 227 of the Constitution of India in the High Court of Bombay challenging the companyrectness of the order.
The appellant instituted the suit No.
On 9.9.1988, the second respondent applied for being impleaded as additional defendant in the suit on the ground that they have materials to show that the companystructions are unauthorised, and they are necessary parties to the litigation.
The Court by order dated 22.8.1989 directed the appellant to add the second respondent as defendant and amend the plaint suitably rejecting the companytentions of the appellant that the second respondent was neither a necessary number a proper party to be impleaded in the suit.
6181 of 1988 before the City Civil Court, Bombay, challenging the validity of the numberice and for injunction restraining the Municipal Corporation from demolishing the structures, Interim injunction was granted by the companyrt.
This appeal by special leave is directed against the judgement of the High Court dated 13.10.1989.
From the Order dated 13.10.1989 of the Bombay High Court in Writ Petition No.
The second respondent is neither a necessary number a proper party to the suit.
The application was companytested by both the appellant and the third respondent.
The plaintiff was dominus litis and, therefore, cannot be forced to join the second respondent as defendant.
The High Court by the impugned judgment dismissed the writ petition.
Three grounds have been urged by the learned companynsel for the appellant against the sustainability of the order.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
The first respondent, the Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay issued numberice dated 5.8.1988 under section 351 of the Municipal Corporation Act to the appellant for demolition of two chattles on the terrace on the ground that these were unauthorised companystructions.
Parasaran, Joquium Reis and Kailash Vasdev for the Appellants.
The appellant filed writ petition No.
3570 of 1991.
4229 of 1989.
N. Mishra for J.B.D. CO.
The service station companysists of a petrol pump in the ground floor and a structure with an open terrace for parking of vehicles.
and M.S. Ganesh for the Respondents.
The Judgement of the Court was delivered by FATHIMA BEEVI, J. We have to companysider in this appeal the question whether the second respondent is a necessary or proper party to be joined as defendant under Order 1 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, in the suit instituted by the appellant against the first respondent.
Under the dealership Agreement of 1974, the appellant is in possession of the service station erected on the land held by the second respondent herein, the Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited as lessee.
