60-WP-11653-2018.docx IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY 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 9th 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 Swapnil 2026:BHC-AS:11906 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