The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation and application of Order 1 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, determining the status of a necessary party under the Haryana Municipal Act, 1973 Sec.181.

M. M. Kumar, J.

1. This is a revision petition directed against the order dated 24-8-2000 passed by the civil Judge (Junior Division), Narnaul dismissing the application filed by the applicant-petitioner under Order 1 rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for brevity, the Code) claiming that she was necessary and proper party and was, thus, liable to be impleaded.

2. Facts necessary for deciding the controversy raised in this revision petition are that plaintiff-respondent no.1 has filed the suit challenging the notice issued by the Municipal council, Narnaul under Sec.181 of the Haryana Municipal Act, 1973 (for brevity, the Act) wherein she has been asked to remove the illegal and unauthorised encroachment made by her by construction of staircase in the public street within a period of 7 days. In that suit only Municipal Council, narnaul has been joined as party defendant. Alongwith the suit plaintiff-respondent No.1 has filed an application under Order 39, Rules 1 and 2 of the Code praying for interim injunction. The Civil Judge has-granted the interim stay of demolition of staircase on the passage.

3. The applicant-petitioner in her application filed under Order 1, rule 10 of the Code asserted that she has purchased the land measuring 1475 square yards in the year 1989 and she has constructed her house on the land measuring 1275 square yards and the remaining area of 200 square yards was left for passage. It was further averred that she is presently residing in the house alongwith her family. The plaintiff-respondent No.1, who is her neighbour, has constructed the staircase on two feet area of the passage of the public street which leads to the house of the applicant-petitioner. The construction of staircase In the street raised by the plaintiff-respondent No.1 is in excess and cause obstruction to approach to the house of the applicant-petitioner. Aggrieved by the raising of illegal construction of staircase, the applicant-petitioner filed a complaint dated 27-2-2000 to the Deputy commissioner, Narnaul requesting him for removal of the illegal and unauthorised construction of staircase raised by plaintiff-respondent No.1. The Deputy Commissioner, Narnaul referred the complaint of the applicant-petitioner to the Municipal council, Narnaul for initiation of necessary action. It is on the basis of the complaint sent by the applicant-petitioner that the Municipal Council, narnaul issued a notice dated 28-2-2000 under Sec.181 of the Act to the plaintiff-respondent No.1 directing her to remove the illegal and unauthorised encroachment. The application filed by the applicant-petitioner under order 1, Rule 10 of the Code has been dismissed by the Civil Judge by recording the following order:-

"after hearing both the counsel, I am of the considered view that this is simply a suit for permanent injunction filed by the plaintiff restraining the defendant municipal Committee from demolishing the stair case in question; in view of the notice No.398 dated 28-2-2000. The real material question in this case is that whether the defendant Municipal committee has any right to demolish the stair case in question or not. The question of ownership of the street is not in issue and it is not matter in controversy. The applicant if has any independent cause of action then she can file a fresh suit for the declaration. The present suit is only to protect the stair case in question from demolition and there is no question of ownership of this street involved in this suit. If the applicant is the owner of this street then she can claim this ownership in a separate suit. She is not a necessary and proper party to determine whether the defendant has right to demolish this stair case or not. Under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC only such persons can be made a party in whose absence the matter cannot be adjudicated properly. The presence of the applicant in this case will not facilitate to reach at an adjudication of the matter. She is not a proper and n