JUDGMENT :

[Ajit Kumar, J.]

1. Case called out in the revised call, learned counsel for the petitioner is present though Sri Pradip Chandra, learned Advocate has filed vakalatnama on behalf of Nagar Nigam, Agra but he is not present and Sri Amit Kumar Mishra has filed vakalatname on behalf of respondent No. 1 but he is also not present, however, they have filed counter-affidavit which is taken into consideration while deciding this petition.

2. The petitioner before this Court is a Resident Welfare Association styled as New Resident Agra Welfare Association and claimed to have form a society of the residents of the colony, which has been developed after due sanction of the map by the competent authority.

3. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that colony houses also a community hall, park for the use of residents of the colony, however since opposite party number 1 started using the premises in question for organizing marriages to the disadvantage of residents of the colony to enjoy park as an open space, the society made a complaint to the District Magistrate, Deputy Director General of Police, Agra, Vice Chairman of Agra Development Authority as well as Municipal Commissioner, Nagar Nigam respectively against illegal use of the premises in question and prayed that premises in question be cleared from the unauthorized occupants of marriage hall and park should be cleared for the purpose of use of residents and their children, consequently, the Nagar Nigam, Agra issued notice on 8.4.2010 respectively.

4. Earlier some spot inspection was conducted by the Junior Engineer of the Agra Development Authority and he had submitted a report that half park had got occupied and was being used in the name of marriage home or the banquet hall and that marriage hall was being run by one Surendra Sachdeva, S/o Ram Prakash Agarwal and Lalit Khatri in the name of New Agra Vikas Samiti who have been impleaded as plaintiff in the suit.

5. Municipal Commissioner, Nagar Nigam Agra passed an order to the Additional District Magistrate (City) Agra to seize the community hall by afternoon of 8.6.2010 and to ensure also maintenance of peace and law and order at the same time and appoint a Magistrate for the said purpose. Respondent No. 1 while filed an affidavit before Nagar Nigam, Agra that premises in question was not being used since after 19th July, 2010 as a marriage hall but at the same time instituted a suit to get the order passed by the Municipal Commissioner, Nagar Nigam Agra dated 29.5.2010 declared as illegal and not affecting the plaintiff as well. The decree for permanent injunction was also sought in favour of plaintiff restraining defendant, Nagar Nigam from putting any seal upon community hall and the temple of the New Agra Vikas Samiti.

6. The present petitioner moved an impleadment application in the said suit under Order 1 Rule 10 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 on the ground that they were necessary parties as entire action impugned in the suit had been taken upon complaint made by the petitioner. The said application was considered by the trial Court and ultimately rejected vide order dated 3.11.2010 and the revision filed against the said application has also come to be dismissed. Both the Courts have held that petitioner was neither necessary party nor, proper party as the injunction was sought to the effect that sealing order may not be passed in respect of Satsang Bhawan and temple claimed by the plaintiff and since there was no other samiti of the area was party so there was no question of impleading the present petitioner as a party inasmuch as, the Courts have held that for deciding the issue of injunction may be in the nature of perpetual injunction as against the Nagar Nigam, there was no necessity to implead the present petitioners as defendants in the suit. The Courts have further held that petitioner failed to put up any such case as to what would be his role as a third part