- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:45002 WP No. 17091 of 2017 C/W WP No. 452 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ WRIT PETITION NO. 17091 OF 2017 (LB-RES) C/W WRIT PETITION NO. 452 OF 2023 (GM-CPC) IN WP No. 17091/2017 BETWEEN: HARISH BHAT, S/O P.S.MURTHY BHAT, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, R/O ''SRINIVASA NILAYA'', PADIGARU ROAD, GUNDIBAILU, PIN CODE-576101, UDUPI DISTRICT …PETITIONER (BY SRI. MAHABALESHWARA RAO K.N., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. UDUPI CITY MUNICIPALITY UDUPI-PIN CODE - 576101, BY ITS COMMISSIONER 2. KRISHNAMURTHY NAKSHATRI, MAJOR, NO. 1-3-5A, SAMRUDDHI, PADIGARU ROAD, GUNDIBAILU, UDUPI-PIN CODE-576 101, UDUPI DISTRICT. …RESPONDENTS (BY MR.T.I.ABDULLA, ADVOCATE FOR R1; SRI.VYASA RAO.K.S, ADVOCATE FOR R2) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT R-1 TO TAKE NECESSARY STEPS TO DEMOLISH / ALTER THE CONSTRUCTED Digitally signed by SUMA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:45002 WP No. 17091 of 2017 C/W WP No. 452 of 2023 PORTION OF THE FIRST FLOOR OF THE BUILDING HAVING PROPERTY NO.138/1A1 OF SHIVALLI VILLAGE, UDUPI TALUK & DISTRICT BELONGING TO THE R-2 IN TERMS OF THE FINAL NOTICE DATED 30.08.2016 VIDE ANNEX-E AS REQUIRED UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF SE. 187 OF KARNATAKA MUNICIPALITIES ACT 1964. IN WP NO. 452/2023 BETWEEN: HARISH BHAT, S/O P.S.MURTHY BHAT, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, R/O "SRINIVASA NILAYA", PADIGARU ROAD, GUNDIBAILU, PIN CODE-576 101, UDUPI DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER (BY SRI. MAHABALESHWARA RAO K.N., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. KRISHNAMURTHY NAKSHATRI, S/O LATE MANJUNATHA NAKSHATHRI, AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS, NO.1-3-5A, SAMRUDDHI, PADIGARMUTT ROAD, GUNDIBAILU, UDUPI, PIN CODE-576101, UDUPI DISTRICT. 2. UDUPI CITY MUNICIPALITY SATHYAMOORTHI BHAVAN, K.R.MARG, UDUPI-576101, BY ITS COMMISSIONER UDUPI DISTRICT. ...RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. VYASA RAO K S, ADVOCATE FOR R1; SRI. K.PRASAD HEGDE, ADVOCATE FOR R2) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 14.09.2022 (ANNEXURE- L) ON I.A.NO. VII IN O.S.NO. 671/2016 ON THE FILE OF IV ADDL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, UDUPI AND CONSEQUENTLY - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:45002 WP No. 17091 of 2017 C/W WP No. 452 of 2023 ALLOW THE APPLICATION FILED BY THE PETITIONER (I.A.NO. VII) ANNEXURE- G AND H FILED UNDER ORDER 1 RULE 10(2) R/W SEC 151 OF CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE. THESE PETITIONS, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ ORAL ORDER WP.No.17091/2025 is filed for a direction to the respondent No.1 to take necessary steps to demolish/alter the construction of the first floor by respondent No.2 over the property bearing No.138/1A1 of Shivalli Village, Udupi Taluk, in view of the order dated 30.08.2016 confirming the provisional order passed by respondent No.1. 2. An applicant in I.A.No.VII in O.S.No.671/2016, on the file of the IV Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Udupi, has filed W.P.No.452/2023 challenging an order dated 14.09.2022, by which, his application to be impleaded in the suit was rejected. 3. (i) The suit in O.S.No.671/2016 was filed by respondent No.1 for perpetual injunction against the respondent No.2 herein to restrain it from interfering with the - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:45002 WP No. 17091 of 2017 C/W WP No. 452 of 2023 possession of the respondent No.1 and from forcibly, unauthorizedly, illegally, high-handedly demolishing any portion of the building constructed over the property bearing Door No.1-3-5A. (ii) The respondent No.1 claimed that he was the owner of the aforesaid property and that he applied to the respondent No.2 for grant of licence and approval of a plan for putting up first floor over the existing ground floor. Accordingly, the municipality granted a commencement certificate dated 25.06.2015 and a building licence and approved plan dated 25.06.2015. The respondent No.1 claimed that he started construction in accordance with the plan sanctioned and the licence granted. (iii) When things stood thus, the respondent No.1 alleged that the petitioner herein, who is his neighbor who had constructed a palatial house on his property by violating the approved building plan and licence, had objected against the construction put up by him. He claimed that he had completed the construction as per the sanctioned plan and the conditions of the licence and that there was no violation. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:45002 WP No. 17091 of 2017 C/W WP No. 452 of 2023 (iv) Nonetheless, he alleged that the petitioner herein was hellbent upon bringing down construction put up by him and at his instance, the municipality issued a notice dated 30.08.2016 to demolish the portion of the building which allegedly violated the sanctioned plan. The respondent No.1 gave a reply to the final notice. He contends that no inspection was ever conducted by any of the officials of the municipality before alleging that there was violation of the sanctioned plan and the notice dated 30.08.2016 was issued at the behest of the petitioner. The respondent No.1 alleged that the officials of the municipality had yielded to the pressure of the petitioner for obvious reasons. (v) The respondent No.1 therefore sought for perpetual injunction to restrain the municipality from interfering with its possession or forcibly demolishing the construction. The suit was contested by the municipality and an application was filed by it under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as ‘CPC’ for short) to reject the plaint, as, such a suit was not maintainable against it. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:45002 WP No. 17091 of 2017 C/W WP No. 452 of 2023 (vi) In the meanwhile, the petitioner herein filed an application (I.A.No.VII) under Order I Rule 10(2) of the CPC to be impleaded as a defendant in the suit. The said application was opposed by the respondent No.1 and the trial Court in terms of the impugned order, rejected the application on the ground that it is respondent No.1 who is the master of the suit and he alone is entitled to decide the defendant against whom he needs the relief. It held that the petitioner was neither a necessary nor a proper party and therefore, the petitioner was not permitted to be impleaded in this suit. Being aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner is before this Court. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner is the immediate neighbor of the respondent No.1 and the respondent No.1 has constructed the building violating the sanctioned plan and licence. He contends that it was the petitioner who submitted objections against the construction, which prompted the municipality to issue a notice to the respondent No.1. He contends that a perusal of the plaint shows that several allegations were made against the petitioner that he had conspired with the officials of the municipality. He therefore contends that his civil rights are affected by the - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:45002 WP No. 17091 of 2017 C/W WP No. 452 of 2023 proceedings before the Civil Court and therefore, he was a proper and necessary party, as the whole proceedings are initiated against the respondent No.1 at his instance. Thus, he contends that he is interested in the outcome of the suit, as any order that may be passed in the suit would affect his civil rights. 5. Per contra, the learned counsel for respondent No.1 submits that the petitioner even if he is a neighbor, his role is only limited to inform the municipality about the violation of the sanctioned plan. He contends that once the municipality has already taken action, the role of the petitioner comes to an end and hence, he is no longer a proper and necessary party. He submits that the respondent No.1 has sought for relief against the municipality and not against the petitioner. Hence, he contends that the trial Court was justified in rejecting the application filed by the petitioner. 6. The learned counsel for the municipality on the other hand contended that the suit itself is not maintainable and an application in that regard is filed before the trial Court and the Court is yet to take a decision on the application. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:45002 WP No. 17091 of 2017 C/W WP No. 452 of 2023 7. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondents. 8. A perusal of the plaint filed by the respondent No.1 shows that the respondent No.1 had copiously referred to the petitioner as the person responsible for causing a notice by the municipality. He has also referred to the petitioner as his neighbor. The plaint also establishes that the respondent No.1 had alleged that the entire proceedings were initiated at the behest of the petitioner and several allegations were made against the petitioner that he had conspired with the municipality officials in bringing about the proceedings, hence to the limited extent of permitting the petitioner to answer these allegations, the trial Court must have allowed the petitioner to come on record as his presence appears to be necessary for complete and final adjudication of the questions involved in the proceedings. Furthermore, a perusal of the application dated 11.06.2018, under Order I Rule 10 of CPC filed by petitioner, also showed that the municipality failed to take action until he filed W.P. No.17091/2017. He also alleged - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:45002 WP No. 17091 of 2017 C/W WP No. 452 of 2023 that collusion between municipality and respondent No.1 may be one of the reasons behind the inaction on the part of the municipality. 9. It is needless to say that the petitioner being the owner/occupier of a land/building has a right to receive and enjoy so much of light and air that comes vertically thereto and to open doors and windows in his own wall. In the complaint given by petitioner to the municipal authority he has alleged that the respondent No.1 had constructed the building without following the setback norms as mentioned in the plan, which in turn affected free movement of air and light. Therefore, the suit for injunction filed by respondent No.1 inadvertently had a bearing on the interest of the petitioner in so far as his right of free air and light is concerned. The right of a neighbour to seek judicial intervention against defective construction put up was upheld by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Rikhabsao Nathusao Jain vs. Corporation of the City of Nagapur and others [(2009) 1 SCC 240], where it was held, "23. xxx - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:45002 WP No. 17091 of 2017 C/W WP No. 452 of 2023 the jurisdiction of the District Judge can be invoked if a building is erected or re-erected in contravention of any town planning scheme or building bye-laws. Indisputably, right of a neighbour is also a valuable right. He, in the event a building plan has wrongly been sanctioned, is entitled to file an appropriate application before the District Court for an injunction for removal or alteration of any building plan on the premise that the same was in contravention of any provisions of the Act or bye-laws made thereunder." 10. In view of the aforesaid, this Court is of the opinion that the impugned order passed by the trial Court warrants interference. Accordingly, the following order is passed: ORDER i. WP No.452/2023 is allowed. ii. The impugned order passed by the trial Court is set aside. The application filed by the petitioner (I.A.No.VII) in O.S.No.671/2016 on the file of the IV Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Udupi, dated 14.09.2022is allowed and petitioner is permitted to come on record as defendant No.2 in the suit. Since the suit is filed in the year 2016, the trial - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:45002 WP No. 17091 of 2017 C/W WP No. 452 of 2023 Court shall endeavor to conclude the suit as early as possible, at any rate within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. iii. WP No.17091/2017 stands disposed off, directing the Municipality to take suitable action after the suit filed by the respondent No.2 in O.S.No.671/2016 is disposed off by the trial Court. Sd/- (R. NATARAJ) JUDGE BKN/List No.: 1 Sl No.: 35