AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Ram Mohan Reddy
Petitioner a complainant/facilitator to enable the respondent-BBMP to take action against the 1st respondent who is said to have put up a construction in violation of building bye-laws and the sanction plan, aggrieved by the order dated 11.6.2012 in Appeal No. 118/2012, rejecting I.A. NO. IV under Order 1 Rule 10(2) CPC, to implead him as a party respondent No. 3 in the appeal, has presented this petition. Undoubtedly, petitioner is neither a necessary nor the proper party to the proceeding instituted and commenced by the respondent-BBMP invoking the provisions of Section 321 of the Karnataka Municipal Corporations Act, 1976, leading to the filing of Appeal No. 118/2012 by the 1st respondent. As noticed supra, petitioner is only a facilitator and therefore, is not a necessary party and proper party for the full adjudication of the dispute brought in Appeal No. 118/2012 as between the 1st respondent and respondents 2 and 3. At best, the petitioner may have some good arguments to make or may be the best witness for the BBMP and nothing more.
Having examined the order impugned, there are no legal grounds to interfere in exercise of extraordinary writ jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Petition, devoid of merit, is rejected.