ORDER:

This Civil Revision Petition is filed aggrieved by the order dated 22.12.2021 passed by the VI Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad in I.A.No.1098 of 2020 in OS.No.521 of 2020.

2. Heard Sri D.S.V.G.Naga Raju, learned counsel for revision petitioner and Sri Raparthi Venkateswarlu, learned Standing Counsel for respondent No.3-GHMC. Though Sri R.A.Chary, advocate, entered appearance for respondent Nos.1 and 2, none appeared on his behalf.

3. The revision petitioner is the proposed party, respondent Nos.1 and 2 herein are plaintiffs and respondent No.3 herein is defendant in the suit before the trial Court.

4. The facts of the case shorn off unnecessary details are that respondent Nos.1 and 2 filed suit in OS.No.521 of 2020 on the file of the VI Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, for the relief of perpetual injunction restraining respondent No.3 herein- defendant therein and its men, etc., from interfering with their peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property, i.e., house bearing No.16-11-751 in Sy.No.69, admeasuring 336 square yards situated at Moosarambagh, Hyderabad.

4.1. The proposed party is the owner of house bearing No.16-11-750, Moosarambagh, Hyderabad, which is situated adjacent to the suit schedule property i.e., house bearing No.16-11-750, Moosarambagh, Hyderabad. The proposed party averred that the suit schedule property is being constructed by respondent Nos.1 and 2 in violation of the sanctioned plan and also without leaving setbacks and thus, affecting his easementary rights. 4.2. The case of the proposed party is that he made complaints to the GHMC on 11.12.2019 and 23.12.20219 seeking to take action against the unauthorized constructions made by respondent Nos.1 and 2, however, as respondent No.3-GHMC did not take any action, he filed WP.No.5083 of 2020 and this Court vide order dated 06.03.2020 disposed of the said Writ Petition directing respondent No.3 to take action against the illegal constructions, if any, made by respondent Nos.1 and 2. In the said order, it was also observed that the writ petitioner, i.e., the proposed party herein is at liberty to get himself impleaded in the suit. Accordingly, the revision petitioner filed an application in IA.No.521 of 2020 praying the Court to implead him as defendant No.2 in the suit- OS.No.521 of 2020. However, the trial Court dismissed the said application vide impugned order dated 22.12.2021, primarily on the ground that the High Court has already directed respondent No.3-GHMC to take action against the unauthorised constructions, if any, made by respondent Nos.1 and 2 and therefore, the proposed party is not necessary party for adjudication of dispute between respondent Nos.1 and 2-plaintiffs and respondent No.3-defendant in the suit.

5. Aggrieved by the dismissal of the said application, the proposed party filed the present Revision Petition.

6. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner contended that despite the liberty given to the revision petitioner to get himself impleaded in the suit filed by respondent Nos.1 and 2, vide order dated 06.03.2020 of this Court in WP.No.5083 of 2020, the trial Court erroneously dismissed the aforesaid application. Learned counsel further contended that as respondent Nos.1 and 2, who are neighbours to the proposed party, are making constructions in violation of the sanctioned plan, that too, without leaving any setbacks, thereby the rights of easement and ventilation to the house of the revision petitioner are adversely affected and therefore, the revision petitioner being the directed affected party due to the illegal constructions made by respondent Nos.1 and 2 is a necessary party to the suit. Learned counsel further contended that in the said suit, respondent Nos.1 and 2 obtained an ex parte order of status quo, but respondent No.3-GHMC is not taking steps to get the same vacated and hence, the revision petitioner, whose easementary rights are affected, is necessary party to