9911796707
|
Home
Issues involved:
The issues involved in the judgment are impleadment of a third party in a suit for declaration and perpetual injunction, the right of light and air, and the legality of a notice issued under Section 452 of the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955. Impleadment of Third Party: The respondent filed a suit seeking declaration and injunction against the Municipal Corporation and the Assistant City Planner, challenging a notice issued under Section 452 of the Municipal Act. The appellant, a neighbor, sought impleadment in the suit claiming infringement of his right of light and air due to the plaintiff's construction. The trial court allowed the appellant's application for impleadment, considering that he had a grievance related to the construction, even though he did not claim any title over the property. The High Court dismissed the plaintiff's revision petition, citing a previous order involving similar circumstances. However, upon review, the High Court recalled its earlier order and directed the trial court to reconsider the impleadment applications, emphasizing the need to assess the necessity of the appellant's presence based on the relief sought in the suit and the disputed notice. Legal Jurisdiction and Review: The High Court's review of its earlier order was deemed flawed by the Supreme Court. The Court highlighted that review jurisdiction is limited and should only be exercised in case of a mistake apparent on the face of the record. The High Court's reconsideration of the merits of the order dated 08.06.2011 exceeded the scope of review, as it essentially re-evaluated the decision rather than focusing on any evident mistake. The Supreme Court held that the High Court was unjustified in reviewing the order and set aside the impugned order dated 13.12.2011, allowing the appeals with no costs incurred.
|
