AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith.
Heard finally with the consent of learned Counsel for both the parties.
The present petition challenges order dated 19.01.2026, passed below Exhibit 18 by the 23rd Joint Civil Judge Senior Division, Nagpur, whereby the application filed by the present petitioner to intervene in the pending civil suit bearing R.C.S. No. 985/2024, is rejected.
The facts as can be seen from the petition are as under :
The respondent No. 1, who is the original plaintiff filed a suit challenging notice issued by the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 under Section 54 of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966. It was the case of the original respondent No. 1 that he has not made any construction or contrary to or which is unauthorized to the sanctioned plan. In the said civil suit, only the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 were made as party defendants, and a declaration regarding the legality or otherwise of the notice was claimed. In the said suit, the present petitioner filed an application for intervention/for addition of him as a party defendant under Order I, Rule 10 of the Civil Procedure Code. In the said application, it was contended that it is the present petitioner on whose complaint the action has been initiated by the respondent N.M.C. It was further contended that the original plaintiff has made certain encroachment over the property owned by the present petitioner, and therefore, his presence is necessary.
The said application is rejected by the Trial Court; the order which is impugned in the present petition.
Mr. Valesha, learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that even though he may not be a necessary party in the suit, admittedly, it was on his complaint that the notice impugned in the suit was issued by the respondent Corporation. He would submit that the Trial Court has gravely erred in rejecting the application in the light of said facts. He relied on the judgment of this Court in Aijaz @ Azaz Mohammed Shaikh vs. Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay and another, in Writ Petition No. 9622 of 2011.
Per contra, the learned Counsel for the respondent No. 1, as also the learned Counsel for respondent Nos. 2 and 3, would oppose the contentions.
Mr. Gour, learned Counsel would submit that as can be seen from the prayer clause, no relief is claimed against the present petitioner, and therefore, his presence is not at the most necessary. He relies on various judgments of this Court as well as of the Apex Court to support his submission.
Be that as it may, I have perused the averments in the plaint, as also the impugned order. It is only because of the complaint of the present petitioner that the Corporation has swung into action and issued notice. However, bare reading of the prayer clause would reveal that the only relief is claimed regarding the declaration about the legality or otherwise of the notice issued by the Corporation. Even though Mr. Valesha, would contend that the respondent No. 1 has encroached upon certain premises, that would not ipso facto clothe him with the right to intervene in the application in the pending suit.
As far as judgment cited by learned Counsel for petitioner, the same was concerning easementary rights and thus had different facts.
Having gone through the impugned order and in view of the settled position of law, I am of the considered opinion that there is no perversity or jurisdictional error in the impugned order. The petition is liable to be dismissed.
Needless to mention that the petitioner is at liberty to take appropriate steps in accordance with law.