Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

5. Though both the proposed parties were served with notice, the Pondicherry Planning Authority alone filed a counter, wherein it is stated that they have issued a building permit to the revision-petitioner in respect of the plot No. 45, in R.S. No. 169/4. But, he had made deviations by constructing the building and the same was noted by the staff of the Authority. A deviation notice dated 14.4.1988 was issued to the revision petitioner directing him to stop all the work immediately. The revision-petitioner continued the work inspite of the receipt of the deviation notice and thereafter, a reminder dated 29.7.1989 was sent to him. It is a fact that the revision-petitioner encroached upon the public canal and the road which belong to the Oulgaret Commune Panchayat and in this regard a communication has also been sent to them to take suitable action against the revision petitioners. The Pondicherry Planning Authority is taking necessary action against the revision-petitioner as far as the deviations committed by him are concerned. Lastly, it was stated that Oulgaret Commune Panchayat is only the rightful person in respect of the encroached portion but not the Planning Authority, Pondicherry. Since in this case no question or issue is involved which is to be adjudicated in the presence of the proposed party, the proposed party is not a necessary party.

In Munshi Ram v. Narsi Ram , it was held:
The omission to iniptead a defendant was due to a mistake Section 21(1) of the-Act would be attracted and the defendant has to be impleaded under O.I, Rule 10, C PC. to enable the court effectually and completely to adjudicate upon and settle all the questions involved in the suit.
In the instant case, the trial court on the facts and circumstances of the case came to the conclusion that the proposed parties are necessary parties in order to enable the said court to effectually and completely adjudicate the issue involved in the said suit. It is seen from the counter filed by one of the proposed party that the revision petitioner herein has encroached upon the public canal and the road which belong to Oulgaret Commune Panchayat and that he has made deviations by constructing the building and a deviation notice was issued to him directing him to stop all the works. It is to be noted {Hat the petitioner has not challenged the said order. For all these reasons, I am of the view that the Impugned order does not suffer from any infirmity or illegality whatsoever for this Court to interfere in revision. Consequently the revision fails and stands dismissed. No costs.