building to lay the pathway and the plaintiff demanded notice to be issued to him and when the Corporation attempted to demolish the portion of the house without giving notice, the suit was filed. It is the stand of the Corporation/second respondent that the plaintiff has encroached upon the channel poramboke constructed building without planning approval and the construction is illegal and the residents of Sringeri Nagar and Duraisamy Nagar are affected by the stagnation of rain water and encroachment of the patwhay by the petitioner. Therefore, considering the fact that the seocnd respondent has stated in the written statement that the revision petitioner has encroached upon the pathway and the first respondent has stated in the affidavit filed by it to implead itself in the petition as well as in the suit that they have no other way except to go through the pathway to reach the main road, the Court below has rightly allowed the application as the first respondent is a necessary party who will be affected by any adverse order that may be passed against the Corporation. Further, the lower Court after relying upon the judgment reported in 2010 (2) TLNJ Page 482(Civil) in S.M.Lakshmi Suresh -vs- Sri Athikesava Perumal Peyalvar Devasthanam by its Chairman of Trust Board and three others, (2011) 3 MLJ Page 452 in M.K.M. Mohamed Nazer and others -vsR.A.Venugopal(Died) and others, 2006 (3) MLJ 105(SC) in Bhogadi Kannababu -vs- Vuggina Pydamma and 2010(6) CTC 192 in Robust Hotels (P) Ltd.,365, Anna Salai, Tenyampet, Chennai, held that the first respondent is a proper and necessary party to the suit. Hence, I do not find any infirmity in the order of the Court below and hence the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous petition is closed.
