This petition essentially involves the dispute as to

violation of Building Bye-laws inasmuch as, petitioner

has allegedly not kept the setback as prescribed, while

putting the structure in her site. She having suffered

some coercive orders under the provisions of the

Karnataka Municipal Corporations Act, 1976, has filed

Appeal No.89/2020 before the Karnataka Appellate

Tribunal. The first respondent’s prayer for impleadment

having been granted vide order dated 03.02.2022., the

petitioner is grieving before the Writ Court against the

same.

2.

Having heard the learned counsel for the

petitioner and the learned Sr. Panel Counsel appearing

for respondent nos. 2 & 3, this Court declines to grant

indulgence in the matter for the following reasons:

a) The first respondent happens to be the owner of

the adjoining site and the complainant as to violation of

3

Building Bye-laws by the petitioner; there is also a civil

suit pending between them in O.S.No.8732/2019;

ordinarily the persons at whose instance, the coercive

action is generated are treated as proper parties if not

necessary parties, in terms of RAZIA BEGUM vs.

SAHEBZADI ANWAR BEGUM AIR 1958 SC 886; the

impugned order having been accordingly structured,

there is no scope for challenge.

b) After all, what prejudice would be caused to the

petitioner by the impleadment of the first respondent to

the pending KAT Appeal No.89/2020 is not forthcoming;

the participation of the first respondent in petitioner’s

appeal as a party is eminently justified; that would serve

the cause of principles of natural justice too.

In the above circumstances, this writ petition being

devoid of merits is rejected all contentions having been

kept open.

Costs made easy.

Sd/-

JUDGE

Bsv