MAHIPAL SINGH vs MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI

Judgment text excerpt

$~75 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of Decision: 7th April, 2025 + CM(M) 633/2025 & CM APPL. 20177-20178/2025 MAHIPAL SINGH .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Anuj Kumar Gupta, Advocate versus MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI .....Respondent Through: Mr. Akhil Mittal, Standing Counsel for MCD with Mr. Sidhant Garg, Advocate CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ JAIN J U D G M E N T (oral) CM APPL. 20178/2025 (exemption) Exemption allowed, subject to all just exceptions. CM(M) 633/2025 & CM APPL. 20177/2025 1. Petitioner has filed an appeal which is pending adjudication before the learned Presiding Officer, Appellate Tribunal (MCD), Delhi. 2. Appeal is titled as Mahipal Singh Vs. MCD (Appeal No. 323/2024). 3. During pendency of the aforesaid appeal, application was moved by one Mr. Raj Kumar under Order I Rule 10 CPC seeking his impleadment as a necessary party in the aforesaid appeal on the premise that he shared adjoining boundary wall with the property in question. 4. Fact remains that such application has been dismissed by the learned Appellate Tribunal observing that the same is not maintainable and, in case there is any dispute between such applicant and the appellant, the applicant Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed CM(M) 633/2025 1 By:SONIA THAPLIYAL Signing Date:08.04.2025 16:43:05 can always maintain proceedings before a competent Civil Court. 5. Appellant is, however, aggrieved by supplementary observation made in the aforesaid order whereby such applicant has been, however, permitted to file documents, if any, and to orally argue the matter at final-arguments stage. 6. The grievance of the petitioner is very limited. 7. He submits that since applicant was not found to be a necessary or proper party in the aforesaid appeal, he should not have been gi