- (1.) The present revision petition has been preferred against the order dated 03.12.2015 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Hisar, vide which the application moved by the petitioner under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short 'CPC') for rejection of the plaint has been dismissed.
(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that plaintiff-respondent no.1 has challenged the sanctioning of two site plans. But, the owners of the building, who got sanctioned these site plans, have not been impleaded as party to the suit. He further contended that as per Section 256 of the Haryana Municipal Corporation Act, 1994 (for short 'Act'), the Commissioner of the Municipal Corporation is competent to cancel the sanctioning of the site plan if the same has been obtained by misrepresentation, fraudulently and concealment of material facts. He further contended that the jurisdiction of the Civil Court is barred to entertain any suit for grant of injunction in view of Section 261 (4) of the Act. Thus, he contended that the suit of the plaintiff-respondent no.1 was barred by law and the plaint was liable to be rejected.
(3.) On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents contended that the provisions of Section 261(4) of the Act are not applicable as no injunction has been sought against the Commissioner of Municipal Corporation. They further contended that construction is being raised by defendant no.2 on the basis of the impugned site plans. So, there was no need to implead the previous owners. Moreover, if it is found that they were necessary party to the suit, they can be impleaded at any stage. Thus, they contended that the application filed by the petitioner has been rightly dismissed.;