Bela M. Trivedi, J. - (1.) The present petition has been filed by the petitioner-applicant under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India, challenging the order dated 28.01.2014 passed by the Additional Civil Judge (J.D.) No.4, Jaipur Metropolitan City, Jaipur (hereinafter referred to as "the trial court") in Civil Suit No.44/13, whereby the trial court has dismissed the application of the petitioner-applicant for impleading him as the party-defendant in the suit under Order I Rule 10 of CPC.
(2.) The respondent No.1-plaintiff has filed the suit against the respondent Nos.2 to 5-defendants, challenging the notices more particularly the notice dated 06.02.2013 given by the respondent Nos.2 & 3, and seeking permanent injunction against the respondents-defendants, from causing any obstruction to the plaintiff in carrying out the finishing work or electric fitting work in the shop belonging to the respondent No.1-plaintiff. In the said suit, it was alleged by the respondent No.1-plaintiff that because of the complaint made by the tenant of the shop situated above the shop of the plaintiff, the municipal corporation had given the said notices to the plaintiff. The petitioner-applicant who is the tenant in the shop situated above the shop of the respondent-plaintiff had therefore submitted an application for impleading him as the party-defendant in the suit under Order I Rule 10 of CPC, which has been dismissed by the trial court vide the impugned order.
(3.) It is submitted by the learned counsel Mr. Anil Mehta for the petitioner-applicant that the entire building where the shops of the petitioner and of the respondent-plaintiff are situated, has become very dangerous for being used as the respondent No.1 had unauthorisedly removed the mid wall of the two shops belonging to him, as a result thereof the building has become weak and the petitioner himself has been asked to vacate his shop. According to him, even municipal corporation has directed the respondents to repair the shop of the petitioner vide the notice dated 06.02.2013, which is under challenge in the suit. According to him, the petitioner having semblance of right in the shop in question, he is a necessary party. However, the learned counsel Mr. Saransh Saini for the respondent No.1-plaintiff has submitted that the respondent-plaintiff has not claimed any relief against the petitioner, and therefore, he cannot be said to be a proper or necessary party. According to him, the petitioner is only the tenant of the shop of the above shop of the respondent-plaintiff, and the landlord of the said shop having not come forward the trial court has rightly dismissed the application of the petitioner. Learned counsel Mr. Saini has relied upon the various decisions of this Court in support of his submissions.;