JUDGMENT

V.L. Achliya, J. - Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. By consent of learned counsels for petitioner and respondent no. 2 heard finally at the stage of admission.

2. By this petition filed under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner-original plaintiff has challenged the order dated 24.01.2018 passed by the 9th Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Ahmednagar in R.C.S. No. 280/2016. By the impugned order, the trial Court has allowed the application (Exh. 30) moved by the respondent No. 2 under Order 1 Rule 10 (2) of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short, "C.P.C.") to join him as a party defendant no.2 to the suit filed by the petitioner-plaintiff.

3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and respondent no. 2. No notice issued to respondent no. 1 as presence of respondent No. 1 not required for disposal of petition.

4. Before adverting to deal with the submissions advanced, it is useful to refer few facts leading to filing of this petition. The petitioner-plaintiff herein has filed the civil suit seeking declaration and injunction as against the respondent no. 1 -Municipal Corporation to effect that the notice dated 28.04.2016 issued by the respondent no. 1 to demolish the suit structure is illegal, bad in law and inoperative against the plaintiff. By way of consequential relief, the petitioner has claimed prohibitory injunction to restrain the respondent no. 1- Municipal Corporation and its officers to act as per notice dated 28.04.2016 and to demolish the suit structure.

5. In short, the petitioner has filed the suit with the contention that he is a barber by profession and since last 25 years running the hair-cutting saloon from the suit premises. On 15.07.2013, he purchased the suit premises from owner. Since the premises being very old require repairs. He approached to officials of the Municipal Corporation seeking permission to carry out the repairs. However, he was told that for the purpose of carrying out repair, no permission is required. On 07.01.2015, the petitioner has also submitted application along with the plan for grant of permission. He pursued that application, but he was again told that permission is not required. Believing in the words of the officials of the Municipal Corporation and rainy season to start from the month of June, 2015, he carried out the repair work in his premises. Nobody made complaint while the work was in progress and completed. Subsequently, the respondent no. 2 having jewellery shop in same locality and interested to purchase the shop premises purchased by petitioner made a false complaint to respondent No. 1 - Municipal Corporation. On the basis of the false complaint by respondent No. 2, the Municipal Corporation has issued notice dated 08.03.2016, which was immediately responded by petitioner on 11.03.2016. Respondent no. 1, without conducting enquiry and giving opportunity of hearing to petitioner issued impugned order/notice dated 28.04.2016 directing him to demolish the suit structure. Being aggrieved, the petitioner has preferred suit for declaration and injunction.

6. In short, it is a case of petitioner that the respondent no. 2 is neither necessary nor proper party to the suit. No relief is claimed against respondent no. 2. So also the presence of respondent no. 2 is not required to enable the Court to effectively and completely adjudicate the subject matter of the suit. Without any cause or any reason and just to harass the petitioner, the respondent no. 2 has moved an application under Order 1 Rule 10 (2) of C.P.C. to join him as a party defendant no.2 to the suit. The petitioner has resisted the application by filing reply. It is specifically pointed out that the petitioner has claimed no relief against respondent no. 2. It is further pointed out that respondent no. 2 is neither necessary nor proper party to the suit and decision in the suit no way affect any right, title and interest of respondent no. 2. In spite of that the tria