Page 1

1

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 10779-10780 OF 2013 (arising out of S.L.P. (Civil) Nos. 13098-13099/2012)

N.ANANTHA REDDY                           Petitioner(s)

                VERSUS

ANSHU KATHURIA & ORS.                     Respondent(s)

J  U  D  G  M  E  N  T

R.M. Lodha, J. :

Leave granted.

2. The respondent No. 1 herein filed a suit for  

declaration  and  perpetual  injunction  against  the  

Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation (respondent No.  

2 herein) and the Assistant City Planner (respondent  

No.  3  herein).  In  the  suit,  the  respondent  No.  1  

(plaintiff) prayed that notice dated 23.12.2009 issued  

under Section 452 of the Greater Hyderabad Municipal  

Corporation Act, 1955 be declared as illegal, void and  

not legally tenable. It was further prayed that the

Page 2

2

defendants (respondent Nos. 2 and 3 herein) have no  

right to interfere with the construction being put up  

by  the  plaintiff.   The  plaintiff  also  prayed  for  

perpetual  injunction  restraining  the  two  defendants,  

their officers/officials/servants from interfering with  

the suit scheduled property and by directing them not  

to demolish or cause any damage to the suit schedule  

property.

3. The appellant, who is plaintiff's neighbour,  

made applications for his impleadment in the suit and  

the application for interim relief. The applicant did  

not claim any right, title or interest in the suit  

schedule  property  but  claimed  that  there  is  

infringement  of  his  right  of  light  and  air  if  the  

construction  by  the  plaintiff  is  commenced  and  

completed and, therefore, he is a proper  party in the  

matter.

4. The trial court heard the plaintiff and the  

proposed party and by order dated 20.07.2010 allowed  

the said applications. The trial court, while allowing  

the said applications made by the present appellant,  

observed as follows :-

Page 3

3

“The claim of petitioner is that, though  he is not claiming right over the property  of  plaintiff,  his  grievance  is  only  about  the construction being made by the plaintiff  because it is effecting his right for light  and air. The objection of the plaintiff is  that  because  he  is  challenging  the  notice  issued by the Municipality in respect of the  construction,  since  the  petitioner  is  not  having any right over the suit property, he  is  not  necessary  party.  I  have  considered  other  submissions  also  made  and  the  citations relied by  the either side.  Under  Order  1  Rule  10  a  party  would  become  necessary  party  or  proper  party  if  he  is  having only over the subject matter to be  adjudication under the suit and then can be  impleaded.  In this case though the third  party petitioner is not claiming any title  over the property. Even if the pleadings of  the  plaintiff  have  to  be  considered,  the  title  of  the  plaintiff  over  the  suit  property  is  not  in  dispute.   What  is  in  dispute  among  the  plaintiff  and  the  defendants already on record  is about the  construction  being  made  by  the  plaintiff.  Because  the  defendants  already  on  record  have  said  to  have  issued  notice  to  the  plaintiff stating that the construction is  illegal.  Challenging  the  said  notice  the  present suit is filed.  The present suit is  filed  after  withdrawing  the  previous  suit  for  injunction  filed  against  Municipality  said  to  be  filed  before  issuance  of  the  notice under Section 452 of Municipal Act.  In that case the petitioner had already been  impleaded  on  his  application  as  he  was  expressing the grievance of the infringement  of his right for light and air in view of  the construction of the plaintiff.  Having  considered  the  decisions  relied  by  either  party to my considered opinion, the decision  relied by the third party petitioner is that  similar facts as of the present case on hand  wherein the Court held that though the said  third party is not a necessary party, but he

Page 4

4

is proper party in respect of his grievance  to the suit proceedings there in and ordered  his impleading in the suit. The facts in the  decisions relied by the Learned Counsel for  plaintiff are not similar to the facts on  hand.  Therefore by following the decisions  relied  by  Learned  Counsel  for  third  party  petitioner  in  2005  (6)  ALD  NOC  223  (Between : Neelam Ajit Vs.  S. Suresh Reddy  and another), I hold that the third party  petitioner can be impleaded in the suit and  as well as the application for injunction as  Defendant  No.  3  and  Respondent  No.  3  respectively.”

5. The  above  order  of  the  trial  court  was  

challenged by the respondent No. 1 (plaintiff) before  

the  High  Court.  The  High  Court,  after  hearing  the  

parties, by its order dated 08.06.2011 dismissed the  

Civil Revision Petitions filed by the respondent No. 1  

herein by observing as follows :

“4. It is to be noted that the vendor of the  plaintiff  and  the  vendor  of  the  first  respondent  herein  are  neighbours,  having  purchased common property and dividing the  same  into  two  portions  and  one  portion  comprising an extent of 790 sq. yards was  purchased  by  the  first  respondent  and  the  other  portion  comprising  of  580  sq.  yards  was  purchased  by  the  vendor  of  the  plaintiff.  It is further stated that both  the  parties  made  constructions  in  their  respective plots and allegations and counter  allegations  were  made  against  one  another  alleging deviations from the sanctioned plan  and violation of the building rules.

5. It  is not  disputed that  previously in  the  similar  circumstances,  this  Court  by

Page 5

5

common  order  dated  25.10.2010  in  CRP  Nos.  2870 and 3882 of 2010, dismissed the said  revision petitions and confirmed the orders  passed  by  the  trial  court,  permitting  the  first  respondent  to  come  on  record  as  defendant  in  the  said  suit  OS  No.  960  of  2010 and copy of the said order is placed on  record.  The  issue  raised  in  the  present  revision petitions virtually covered by the  said earlier order dated 25.10.2010 in CRP  Nos. 2870 and 3882 of 2010 and adopting the  reasons  mentioned  therein,  the  present  revision petitions are also dismissed.”

6. The  respondent  No.  1  then  made  applications  

for  review  of  the  order  of  the  High  Court  dated  

08.06.2011.

7. The High Court by the impugned order  recalled  

its  earlier  order  dated  08.06.2011  and  directed  the  

trial  court  to  consider  the  applications  for  

impleadment afresh.

8. While  recalling  the  order  dated  08.06.2011,  

the High Court observed thus :

“11.  During  enquiry  of  the  review  applications,  the  petitioner  filed  several  documents including the sale deeds and the  sanctioned  plan  and  also  photographs  in  support of his contention that while making  the  construction  he  has  left  the  space  towards  set  backs  as  required  under  the  rules and the construction is in accordance  with the sanctioned plan and the question of  petitioner's  construction  causing  obstruction to the free flow of light and

Page 6

6

air to the first respondent's six storied  building does not arise.  The said documents  were not filed before the trial Court and  hence, there was no occasion for the trial  Court to refer to the same in the impugned  order. The trial court ordered impleadment  of the first respondent herein mainly on the  ground that in the earlier suit, which was  filed  by  the  plaintiff  against  the  municipality for mere injunction, the first  respondent was impleaded on his application.  It  is  stated  that  the  earlier  suit  was  withdrawn and subsequently, plaintiff filed  the present suit for declaration that the  notice  issued  under  section  452  of  the  Municipal  Corporation  Act  is  illegal.  Admittedly,  no  relief  is  sought  in  the  present suit against the first respondent.  The question as to whether or not the first  respondent  herein  would  be  a  proper  and  necessary party having regard to the nature  of the relief prayed for in the present suit  is a matter to be considered independently,  irrespective  of  impleadment  of  the  first  respondent herein in the earlier suit, which  was  filed  only  for  injunction.  The  trial  court  has  to  consider  the  question  as  to  whether  or  not  the  first  respondent  is  a  proper and necessary party to the present  suit  in  the  light  of  the  documents  now  sought to be filed by the petitioner. Order  1 Rule 10 CPC contemplates the impleadment  of  proper  and  necessary  party,  whose  presence before the Court is necessary to  enable the Court effectually and completely  to  adjudicate  upon  and  settle  all  the  questions  involved  in  the  suit.   The  question  as  to  whether  or  not  the  first  respondent is a proper and necessary party,  who can be impleaded in terms of Order 1  Rule 10 CPC has to be considered keeping in  view the relief prayed for in the present  suit and the dispute that is required to be  settled  pertaining  to  the  impugned  notice  issued by the Municipal Corporation.  The  impugned  order  passed  by  the  trial  court  permitted  impleadment  of  the  first

Page 7

7

respondent  on  the  premise  that  he  was  previously impleaded in another suit, which  was filed for injunction is therefore held  unsustainable  and  the  same  is  accordingly  set aside.”

9. A  careful  look  at  the  impugned  order  would  

show  that  the  High  Court  had  a  fresh  look  at  the  

question whether the appellant could be impleaded in  

the suit filed by the respondent No. 1 and, in the  

light  of  the  view  which  it  took,  it  recalled  its  

earlier order dated 08.06.2011. The course followed by  

the  High  Court  is  clearly  flawed.  The  High  Court  

exceeded its review jurisdiction by reconsidering the  

merits  of  the  order  dated  08.06.2011.  The  review  

jurisdiction is extremely limited and unless there is  

mistake  apparent  on  the  face  of  the  record,  the  

order/judgment does not call for review. The mistake  

apparent  on  record  means  that  the  mistake  is  self  

evident,  needs  no  search  and  stares  at  its  face.  

Surely,  review  jurisdiction  is  not  an  appeal  in  

disguise. The review does not permit rehearing of the  

matter on merits.   

10. The  order  passed  by  the  High  Court  on  

08.06.2011, on a careful reading, shows that the High  

Court instead of repeating the reasons which it had

Page 8

8

given in other revision petitions being CRP Nos. 2870  

and 3882 of 2010, while it was fully conscious of the  

fact that those civil revisions arose from a different  

suit followed its order in CRP Nos. 2870 and 3882 of  

2010.   The  High  Court  was  fully  conscious  of  the  

factual and legal position while it was considering the  

civil  revision  petitions  filed  by  the  present  

respondent No. 1.   In the order upon which reliance  

was placed by the High Court while dismissing the civil  

revision petitions, the High Court had noted thus :-

“No doubt, no relief is sought for against  the proposed party in the suit.  The object  of Order 1 Rule 10(2) C.P.C. to implead a  third party to the suit is that the dispute  in  the  suit  would  be  resolved  in  the  presence  of  all,  in  order  to  avoid  multiplicity of proceedings. There must be  some  semblance  of  right  to  the  proposed  party.  If  the  petitioner  violates  the  building  plan  without  leaving  set  backs,  cellar etc., then certainly it would cause  inconvenience  to  the  neighbours.   The  proposed  party  is  one  of  the  neighbours.  Therefore,  to  safeguard  his  interest,  in  view  of  the  fact  that  he  has  got  some  semblance  of  right,  though  no  relief  is  claimed against him, he would be necessary  and proper party to come on record.  That is  why the trial Court rightly impleaded him as  a party to the suit and I.A. and there are  no grounds to interfere with the same. The  revision is devoid of merits and is liable  to be dismissed.”

Page 9

9

11. In our view, the High Court was not at all  

justified to review the order dated 08.06.2011.

12. The  impugned  order  dated  13.12.2011  is,  

accordingly, set aside. Appeals are allowed as above.  

No costs.

..........................J. ( R.M. LODHA )

NEW DELHI; ..........................J. DECEMBER  2, 2013 ( SHIVA KIRTI SINGH )