J. Chelameswar, J.

1. Aggrieved by judgment dated 01.08.2009 in W.P.(C) No. 24798 of 2009 as reaffirmed by dismissing the Review Petition, R.P. No. 1189 of 2009, by an order dated 04.03.2010, the Municipality whose Secretary was the 4th respondent in the writ petition preferred the present appeal.

2. We must place on record our regret that though the abovementioned Municipality is a necessary party which is declared u/s 5 of the Kerala Municipality Act to be a body corporate which can be sued or capable of being sued in its name, was not made a party to the writ petition nor did the Municipality raise any objection in that regard but chose to prefer the instant writ appeal. In our opinion this appeal is not maintainable as the appellant is neither a party to a proceeding of this Court nor an appropriate application seeking leave to file appeal against the judgment to which the instant appellant is not a party. Be that as it may, the facts situation leading to the present litigation and the issues are as follows:

3. The 1st respondent herein is a doctor who purchased certain parcel of land (17.5 cents) within the limits of the appellant Municipality. He proposes to construct