Point of law: Even if no relief is sought against the proposed party in the suit, the object of Order-I Rule 10 (2) CPC is to implead a third party to the suit if the dispute in the suit would be resolved in the presence of all and multiplicity of proceedings will be avoided.

ORDER :

M.S. Ramachandra Rao, J.

1. This Revision is filed challenging the order dated 21.08.2020 in I.A. No. 861 of 2019 in O.S No. 569 of 2019 passed by the I-Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Courts, Secunderabad.

2. The petitioner herein is a third party to the suit. The respondents No. 1 and 2 had filed the said suit against the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation (GHMC) - 3rd respondent, for permanent injunction restraining the latter from visiting or interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property.

3. It is the contention of the respondents No. 1 and 2 that they had started construction in December 2016, after obtaining a sanctioned plan on 10.11.2016 from the 3rd respondent and an occupancy certificate was also issued to them on 17.08.2019. It is contended that when the respondents No. 1 and 2 were making interior work and designing in the suit schedule property without any interference, the officials of the GHMC visited the site and stopped the work and are trying to interfere with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the respondents No. 1 and 2 over the suit schedule property.

4. The petitioner herein filed I.A. No. 861 of 2019 under Order I, Rule - 10 CPC to implead him in the said suit, contending that he is the immediate neighbor of the respondents No. 1 and 2, and the respondent Nos. 1 and 2, having obtained permission for G + 3 floors from the GHMC, are in fact constructing an illegal/unauthorized 4th floor as well. According to him, the 4th floor is constructed after GHMC issued the occupancy certificate to respondent Nos. 1 and 2 and that there is no permission from GHMC to erect the 4th floor. He also contended that he filed WP No. 21790 of 2019 before this Court challenging the inaction of the GHMC, and on 30.09.2029, this Court had disposed of the said Writ Petition directing the Corporation to take action against the illegal construction of 4th floor. He also contended that the respondents No. 1 and 2 had concealed the very fact that they were making construction of the 4th floor by wrongly stating that they were doing only interior works and therefore, since he is a neighbor and his easementary rights are affected and there would also be traffic congestion in the locality, he is entitled to be impleaded as a party in the suit.

5. Counter affidavit is filed by respondents No. 1 and 2 opposing the application. They contended that the petitioner is a chronic litigant, though he is a neighbour and with a personal vengeance only, he has filed this implead application to harass the respondents No. 1 and 2. It is contended that the petitioner has no locus standi to get himself impleaded in the suit since he has no title to the subject property, which belongs to the respondents No. 1 and 2. It is contended that he is neither a necessary nor a proper party. Several decisions are cited in the counter affidavit why the petitioner should not be impleaded in the suit.

6. By order dated 21.08.2020, the Court below dismissed I.A. No. 861 of 2019 accepting the objections of respondents No. 1 and 2. It observed that the petitioner is not a necessary or a property party for adjudication of the dispute in the main suit and the decisions cited by the petitioner are not applicable to the facts of the case. It is also held that a neighbor has no right to get impleaded in the suit since the main suit itself is having limited scope and the respondents No. 1 and 2, being plaintiffs, are masters of their suit/dominus litus and it would widen the scope of the main suit proceedings. It is observed that the petitioner can as well file an independent suit if he is otherwise affected.

7. Assailing the same, the present Revision is filed.

8. Sri C.M.R. Velu, learned counsel for the petitioner, contended that the Court below erred in dismissing the implead application of the petitioner; that the petitioner being a neighbor can always complain of violation of his easementary rights as he is the affected pa