Dismissed
Sri Gandhe Kishan Prasad Rao, v. T. Ramadas
Telangana HCCRP/1031/2011
Case brief
from the order text
What is this about?
Sri Justice C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy Civil…
What the court decided
AI extract
Sri Justice C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy Civil…
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
The Hon'ble Sri Justice C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy
Civil Revision Petition Nos.1031 & 1032 of 2011
Date: 23-02-2012
Between:
Sri Gandhe Kishan Prasad Rao
..... Petitioner
AND
1.T.Ramdas and 2 others.
.....Respondents
Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri Mir Masood Khan
Counsel for the Respondents: Sri T.Ramdas
The Court made the following :
Order:
These two Civil Revision Petitions arise out of Common Order, dated 15-12-2010, in IA.Nos.915 and 916 of 2010 in OS.No.4212 of 2009, on the file of the Court of the learned IV Junior Civil Judge, Hyderabad.
The petitioner herein filed the above-mentioned suit
questioning letter, dated 14-09-2009, issued by respondent No.2- Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation (for short ‘the Corporation’) under Section 636 of the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955 (for short ‘the Act’). Pending the suit, the petitioner has secured an order of status quo vide IA.No.443 of 2009, dated 18-09-2009, as a result of which, respondent No.2 was prevented from proceeding further in pursuance of the said notice. Respondent No.1 is a resident of the flat situated on a floor below the floor on which the petitioner owns the flat in question. It is only on the complaint of respondent No.1 that the officials of respondent No.2- Corporation issued notice under Sections 636 of the Act, which was questioned in the suit by the petitioner. As respondent No.1 was not impleaded in the aforesaid suit and IA filed by the petitioner, he has filed IA.Nos.915 and 916 of 2010 seeking his impleadment in the suit as well as in the IA.
The petitioner resisted both the applications by stating that the interests of respondent No.1 are in no way affected and that, since the dispute is between the petitioner on one side and respondent No.2 on the other, respondent No.1 is neither a necessary nor proper party to the suit proceedings. The Court below, however, rejected the objection of the petitioner and allowed both the applications. Feeling aggrieved thereby, the petitioner filed the present Civil Revision Petitions.
Mr.Mir Masood Khan, learned Counsel for the petitioner, has, strenuously, argued that, while the complaint of respondent No.1 was confined only to the alleged
seepage, the scope of Section 636 of the Act relates to removal of a part of construction and that therefore, respondent No.1 is neither a necessary nor proper party to the suit proceedings.
Respondent No.1- Mr.T.Ramadas, appeared as partyin-person and opposed the above submissions. According to him, the petitioner has encroached on a part of the terrace and has constructed a toilet, from which there is profuse seepage of water into his bed room and other parts of the flat owned by him, and that therefore, he is a necessary and proper party to the suit proceedings.
I have carefully considered the submissions of the learned Counsel for the parties.
A copy of notice issued under Section 636 of the Act, questioning which the petitioner has filed OS.No.4212 of 2009, would show that the same was issued on the complaint petition received from respondent No.1, who is the owner of flat No.A-306. In my opinion, the petitioner ought to have impleaded respondent No.1 as a defendant to the suit, when he proposed to question the notice issued at the instance of the former. Whether the complaint given by respondent No.1 is frivolous or not has no relevance at all in judging his locus in the suit. If the petitioner succeeds in getting the notice issued under Section 636 of the Act set aside by the civil Court, the interests of respondent No.1 will be straight away affected. Therefore, in all fairness, the petitioner ought to have impleaded respondent No.1 as one of the defendants to the suit. Obviously, the petitioner wanted to gain advantage by obtaining relief behind the
back of respondent No.1. Not only that the petitioner failed to implead respondent No.1 as a party but atleast when the lower Court has found respondent No.1 as a necessary and proper party to the proceedings, he did not stop there. He further continued with the litigation by filing these Civil Revision Petitions and secured interim orders vide CRPMP.Nos.1455 & 1456 of 2011, dated 10-06-2011. In my opinion, this conduct of the petitioner cannot be appreciated. As I do not find any error in the Order under revision, the Civil Revision Petitions are dismissed. For indulging in vexatious litigation, the petitioner is saddled with costs of Rs.5,000/- in each case, payable to the respondent.
As a sequel, interim orders, dated 10-06-2011, in CRPMP.Nos.1455 & 1456 of 2011, are vacated and CRPMP.Nos.1455, 1456, 8113 & 8114 of 2011 are disposed of as infructuous.
______________________ (C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy, J)
23rd February, 2012 LUR
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the co-owner/neighbor who complained to the corporation is a necessary or proper party to the ongoing suit questioning the municipal notice.
Whether the trial court erred in admitting an interest application by a non-impleaded co-owner/neighbor.
Whether the petitioners acted vexatiously by seeking interim relief to spectate the litigation of another party's complaint.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Sri Gandhe Kishan Prasad Rao
T. Ramdas
Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation
C.V. Nagarjuna Reddy
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court