This Second Appeal is directed against the judgment and decree passed by the learned Jt. Civil Judge, Senior Division, Aurangabad, in Regular Civil Suit No.184 of 1977, decided on 29th September, 1983, whereby the suit of the plaintiff was dismissed with compensatory costs of Rs.100/- to each of defendant Nos. 1,3,6 to 8; which judgment and decree is further confirmed by the learned III Additional District Judge, Aurangabad, in Regular Civil Appeal No.1 of 1984 decided on 29th September, 1986.

.2. Brief facts relevant for decision of this appeal may be stated as below:-

.The plaintiff/appellant filed the suit against Municipal Council, Aurangabad (as it was then) and its office bearers in official capacity as well as in the individual capacity claiming damages of Rs.8240/-prior to the suit and at the rate of Rs.10/-per day till demolition of illegal construction made by one Govindrao Padalkar on plot No.81 in Bhagya Nagar colony at Aurangabad and for issuing mandatory injunction against respondent Nos. 1 to 4 to demolish or cause to demolish the illegal and unauthorized construction made on plot Nos.81 and 82 by said Govindrao Padalkar, as per order passed on 19th May, 1976 and order No.9881 dated 21st July, 1976, issued by the Chief Officer.

.3. The plaintiff is the owner of plot No.82 of Bhagya Nagar, Aurangabad; whereas Govindrao Padalkar is owner of adjoining plot No.81. It is stated that said Govindrao Padalkar has made

.construction without leaving marginal open spaces in plot No.81 and has encroached into the plot of the plaintiff bearing Plot No.82. Thus, there was unauthorized construction in violation of permission for construction. As a result, notice dated 19.05..1976, produced and proved at Exh.86 was issued to Govindrao Padalkar by respondent No.3 -Chief Officer, stating that he ought to have left side margins while making construction in plot No.81 and has also encroached into plot No.82 as shown in the map annexed to the notice. Said encroachment and illegal construction should be demolished within a period of one month from the notice, otherwise said unauthorized construction and encroachment would be removed by the Municipal Council at the costs of Govindrao Padalkar. The order of demolition No.8991 came to be passed by respondent No.3-Chief Officer on 21st July, 1976. The present plaintiff has filed suit for damages for not implementing said order and also for mandatory injunction for carrying out demolition as per notice Exh.86.

4. Both the Courts have concurrently held that the suit was not tenable as Govindrao Padalkar was not made party to the suit. Both the Courts have also come to the conclusion that the so called unauthorized construction made by Govindrao Padalkar in his plot No.81 was duly and legally regularised on 11th November, 1971 by the then President.

5. Appellant - Shri Muley who himself is an advocate argued the matter in person. He submitted that the appellant still believes that notice Exh.86 was issued under Section 53 of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 (hereinafter referred to as "the M.R.T.P. Act") and as such it has finality and there was no necessity of adding Govindrao Padalkar as party, as he could not have challenged said notice issued under Section 153 of the M.R.T.P. Act. Moreover, he argued that the Trial Court so also the First Appellate Court did not give any opportunity to the plaintiff to add Govindrao Padalkar as party and without giving such opportunity, the suit and the appeal were dismissed. Appellant - Shri Muley stated that the fact that he is an advocate does not disqualify him from agitating legal points raised in the matter and he was never called upon by any Court to add Govindrao Padalkar as party and dismissal of the suit without giving him such opportunity was wrong.

6. On the other hand Adv. Shri Manish Navandar appearing for the respondents argued that the appellant is not a layman. He himself is an advocate. Atleast after