Advocates:
['SWAPNIL KUMAR', 'CHAND BALI PRASAD', '', 'AMIT KUMAR MISHRA', 'DEEPAK SAXENA', 'RANJIT SAXENA', 'PRADEEP CHAUHAN']

Court No. - 9

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 29152 of 2013

Petitioner :- New Agra Resident Welfare Association

Respondent :- New Agra Vikas Samiti Regd. And Another

Counsel for Petitioner :- Swapnil Kumar

Counsel for Respondent :- Chand Bali Prasad,Amit Kumar

Mishra,Deepak Saxena,Pradeep Chauhan,Ranjit Saxena

Hon'ble 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 08.04.2010 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 08.06.2010 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 19^th 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 29.05.2010

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