Parties with a direct interest in the subject matter of a suit, particularly those alleging harm, are necessary for resolution, justifying their impleadment.

ORAL ORDER

1. This writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is filed by the petitioner-plaintiff, challenging the order dated 05.12.2024 passed by the III Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Mangaluru on I.A.No.4 filed by the applicants under Order I Rule 10(2) read with Section 151 of CPC in O.S.No.1089/2024, whereby the trial Court allowed the application.

2. Brief facts of the case of the plaintiff are as under:

a) That the plaintiff is the owner of the suit schedule property, which he purchased from Mrs. Sarojini, a neighbor who is now deceased. On the suit schedule property, the plaintiff has constructed a small shed for the purpose of preparing/manufacturing furniture and carrying out carpentry work. He has been conducting this business for more than 15 years.

b) Subsequently, one Mr.Sathish K, son of the Late Mrs.Sarojini, lodged a complaint with the Mangaluru City Corporation, alleging that the plaintiff has been creating noise pollution, sound pollution, and violating various laws. In response, the Mangaluru City Corporation issued several notices to the plaintiff, to which the plaintiff submitted a detailed reply.

c) Thereafter, the defendant, Mangaluru City Corporation, issued an order dated 18.09.2024, which was served to the plaintiff on the same day at 4:30 p.m., and illegally, without following the due procedure of law, locked the suit schedule premises. As a result, the plaintiff filed a suit for a permanent mandatory injunction, seeking for removal of the lock put on the suit schedule property.

d) During the pendency of the suit, respondents Nos.2 and 3-imleading applicants filed I.A.No.4 under Order I, Rule 10(2) of the CPC, seeking to be impleaded as parties to the suit. The application was allowed. Being aggrieved by the same, the present writ petition is filed.

3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner-plaintiff has contended that the plaintiff has filed the suit against the Mangaluru City Corporation to remove the locks put on the suit schedule property/premises. The cause of action arose on 18.09.2024 at 04:30 p.m., when the defendant- Mangaluru City Corporation issued an order dated 18.09.2024 and put locks on the suit schedule premises. He further submitted that the Corporation, illegally and without following the due procedure of law, put a lock on the suit schedule premises based on the complaint lodged by the impleading applicants. The impleadnig applicants have filed the application seeking to be impleaded as parties to the suit. He further submitted that the cause of action pleaded in the suit and the contents of the complaint lodged by the impleading applicants are different. Therefore, there is no necessity for these parties to be considered as necessary or proper parties in the suit. He further submitted that even the suit can be decided in the absence of the impleading applicants, and their presence is not necessary to decide the questions involved in the suit. The relief sought in the plaint is for a mandatory injunction to direct the Corporation to remove the locks and to restrain the Corporation from interfering with the plaintiff's right to carry on his business in the suit schedule property. No relief has been sought against the present petitioners. Therefore, the application filed to implead them as parties to the suit is contrary to the provisions of Order I Rule 10(2) of CPC. In support of his contention, he relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Ramesh Hirachand Kundanmal vs. Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay reported in Laws (SC) 1992-3-58, and also relied upon the judgments of this Court in W.P.Nos.36508-36509/2014 disposed of on 02.01.2015, and W.P.No.34751/2010 disposed of on 09.11.2010. He further submitted that the grievance in the impleading application that due to the plaintiff carrying out business in the suit property, it is creating noise pollution, causing harm to the impleading applicants, is not a valid reason for impleading the