DEVI DEEP CHS THROUGH ITS CHAIRMAN / SECRETARYversusTHE MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF CITY OF PUNE AND ANR.

2026:BHC-AS:11906

                                                                   60-WP-11653-2018.docx


                    IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
     Swapnil
                               CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
                              WRIT PETITION NO. 11653 OF 2018
               Devi Deep Chs Through Its
               Chairman / Secretary.                         …      Petitioner
                       Vs.
               The Municipal Corporation Of
               City Of Pune and Anr.                         …      Respondents

               Dr. Milind S. Hartalkar i/b. Mr. Tejas P. Hartalkar for the
               petitioner.

                                          CORAM : GAURI GODSE, J.

                                          DATE :        4th MARCH 2026

               ORDER :


               1.       This petition is filed by original plaintiff to challenge the

               order passed by the trial court allowing the application of the

               third party for adding as a necessary and proper party to the

               suit.


               2.       Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the suit

               is filed by the petitioner to challenge the notice dated 9 th

               January 2018 issued by the corporation for carrying out the

               work of drainage pipeline. He submits that in this suit the

               third party, i.e. respondent no.2 filed an application to be

               added as a necessary and proper party on the ground that

                                                  1/4
                                                 60-WP-11653-2018.docx


the laying down of the drainage pipeline as per the third

party’s application was objected by the plaintiff. Hence, they

would be necessary party to the suit. Learned counsel for the

petitioner submits that in a suit filed to challenge the notice

issued by the corporation, the third party would neither be a

necessary nor a proper party as the plaintiff alone is the

dominus litis to decide who should be made party defendant

in the suit. He submits that it is a well established legal

principle that in a suit challenging the notice issued by the

corporation, the third party would not be a necessary party.


3.       He relies upon the decision of the Apex Court in the

case of Mohd Hussain Gulam Shariffi Vs. Municipal

Corporation of Greater Bombay & Ors. 1 He submits that

the Apex Court held that for deciding the legality of a

demolition notice, presence of a third party would not be

necessary and the third party is always at liberty to initiate

independent proceedings. He, therefore submits that in the

petitioner’s suit the third party would not be a necessary

party.


4.       I have perused the papers of the writ petition. The suit

is filed for challenging the notice issued by the corporation
1 2017 (6) ALL MR 420 (S.C.)

                                2/4
                                               60-WP-11653-2018.docx


under Section 155 (1) of the Maharashtra Municipal

Corporation Act, 1949. The notice intimates the petitioner

regarding laying down drainage pipeline as per the attached

plan to the notice.


5.    The third is a society who contended before the trial

court that laying down of the drainage pipeline was

necessary as it was causing severe sewage and overflowing

problems to the society of the third party. It was contended

by the third party that in view of the objection raised by the

plaintiff, the work of laying down drainage pipeline was not

carried out causing prejudice to the third party society. The

trial court considered the contentions raised by the third party

and permitted the addition of the third party as party

defendant on the ground that the third party society would be

a necessary party for effective adjudication of the dispute in

the suit.


6.    The legal principles settled by the Apex Court in the

decision relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner

pertains to a challenge to the notice under Section 351 of the

Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, 1888. Hence, in a suit

challenging the notice for demolition, the Apex Court held


                              3/4
                                                60-WP-11653-2018.docx


that the plaintiff would be a dominus litis and cannot be

forced to add any person as a third party. So far as the

present suit is concerned, the challenge is to the notice

issued under Section 155 (1) of the Maharashtra Municipal

Corporation Act, 1949 for laying down the drainage pipeline.

Under Order I Rule 10 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908

(“CPC”). The trial court can direct addition of a party for an

effective adjudication of the suit and if the third party is

necessary for determination of the real dispute.


7.    Considering the challenge in the suit and the

contentions raised by the third party, I do not find any error in

the impugned order directing the plaintiff to add the third

party as a necessary and proper party to the suit. There is no

illegality or perversity in the reasons recorded in impugned

order warranting any interference in the exercise of

discretionary jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution

of India.


8.    The writ petition, is therefore, dismissed.




                                           [GAURI GODSE, J.]



                               4/4