SHARAD D. DAVE, J. ( 1 ) HEARD LAs for the parties. At the request of the LAs for the parties, the matter is taken up for final hearing. ( 2 ) THE respondent No. 1, original plaintiff has filed reg. Civil Suit No. 74 of 1998 before the Civil Judge (J. D.), Jasdan, for declaration that the defendant has no right to remove the cabin of the original plaintiff, and also prayed for grant of permanent injunction in favour of the plaintiff and to restrain the defendant municipality from removing the cabin from the place. ( 3 ) THE petitioner herein had filed one application below Exh. 14, in Reg. Civil Suit No. 74 of 1998, for joining him as a party defendant/respondent in the said proceedings pending before the Civil Court, Jasdan. The defendant/original plaintiff has submitted that, he is doing a business peacefully, on a Gokhalana Road, in Vaghari Vas, adjacent to the house of persent petitioner. Because of a complaint filed by the present petitioner, before the Jasdan Police Station, he being a highly influenced person and being a political leader, the defendant-Municipality, Jasdan is making efforts to remove the cabin of the original plaintiff. The Jasdan Municipality is likely to remove the cabin. It was further contended that on 27. 10. 1998, the defendant/municipality (since deleted in present C. R. A.) had also issued a letter to the original plaintiff for removing his cabin. The original plaintiff has also filed an application for temporary injunction restraining the original defendant, Municipality from removing the said cabin which is adjacent to the house of the present petitioner, till the final disposal of the suit. ( 4 ) ACCORDING to the petitioner he has also filed one application for joining him as party respondent/defendant in the said suit on the ground that, because of the injunction, granted by the Trial Court, the present petitioner is not in a position to put up a door at his house for which he has also got sanctioned plan from the municipality. There is hardly one foot margin is left between the wall of the house of the present petitioner and the cabin of the original plaintiff. There is hardly one foot margin is left between the wall of the house of the present petitioner and the cabin of the original plaintiff. It is also stated by the present petitioner that the plaintiff had put up the cabin only prior to 2-3 months in a bullying manner and the original plaintiff has no right or title whatsoever, to put a cabin on such a premises, which is creating hurdles for the present petitioner. ( 5 ) IT is further submitted that, the original plaintiff, immediately on receiving the information from the defendant, Municipality for removing the cabin, filed Civil Suit and obtained the relief in his favour. It was also contended by the defendant-municipality, that the original plaintiff has no right or title to cause hurdle to the traffic and create vehicular problems in the city, which may amount to a vehicular accident on the road, because of the encroachment made by the original plaintiff. ( 6 ) IT is a case of the present petitioner that, he has a large family to maintain and that they are not in a position to use the premises without putting up a door since the plaintiff has made encroachment by putting cabin adjacent to the house of the present petitioner. It is also contended by the present petitioner that, the original plaintiff has deliberately not joined the present petitioner as party in the suit filed before the Civil Court, Jasdan and the relief granted by the Civil Court, in Civil Suit No. 74 of 1998, ultimately affects the right and title of the present petitioner. Therefore also the present petitioner is required to be joined as a party defendant in the proceedings before the Civil Court. ( 7 ) ACCORDING to the present petitioner, after hearing the parties, the Ld. Civil Judge (J. D.) Jasdan by its judgment and order dt 31. 12. 1999, rejected the aforesaid application of the present petitioner for joining him as a party respondent in the said proceedings. Therefore, the present petitioner has approached this Court, by way of filing present revision application challenging the order of the Ld. Civil Judge (J. D.), Jasdan, passed below Exh. 14. ( 8 ) THE respodent no. 12. 1999, rejected the aforesaid application of the present petitioner for joining him as a party respondent in the said proceedings. Therefore, the present petitioner has approached this Court, by way of filing present revision application challenging the order of the Ld. Civil Judge (J. D.), Jasdan, passed below Exh. 14. ( 8 ) THE respodent no. 1/original plaintiff has also filed the affidavit-in-reply, wherein it is stated that, the present petitioner, who is a political leader and a highly influenced person, filed a complaint before the Jasdan Police Station and therefore, the defendant, Municipality is trying to remove the cabin of the original plaintiff. Therefore, the original plaintiff has filed the Civil Suit No 74 of 1998, and obtained the order of status-quo against the defendant-Municipality, Jasdan. ( 9 ) THE original plaintiff has denied that, because of his cabin, the present petitioner is not in a position to put up a door at his house. It is also stated that, no approval of plans have been obtained by the present petitioner from the defendant-Jasdan Municipality. Since many years, the plaintiff is doing the business peacefully at the premises in question without causing any nuisance either to the traffic or to the present petitioner. As the existence of the cabin of the plaintiff, in no way causing any hurdle or creating any traffic problems, and it does not affect the present petitioner in either way, the present petitioner should not be allowed to be joined as a party defendant in the proceedings before the Court below. The order dt. 31. 12. 1999, passed by the Ld. Trial Court rejecting the application of the present petitioner is just and proper. It is also denied by the original plaintiff that, the Municipality has passed any such sanctioned plans to put up the door in his house nor for the cabin of the defendant. The defendant/original plaintiff has not made any such encroachment whatsoever. The petitioner is not a necessary party to join in the aforesaid proceedings filed by the original plaintiff as no relief has been prayed against the present petitioner. ( 10 ) THE present petitioner has filed the affidavit -in-rejoinder and denied the contentions raised by the original plaintiff in his affidavit-in-reply. I have heard the LA for the parties at length and also perused two photographs produced at Sr. Nos. 60 and 61 with the compilation. ( 10 ) THE present petitioner has filed the affidavit -in-rejoinder and denied the contentions raised by the original plaintiff in his affidavit-in-reply. I have heard the LA for the parties at length and also perused two photographs produced at Sr. Nos. 60 and 61 with the compilation. From photograph at Sr. No. 60, it is clear that, there is hardly 1ft. gape between the wall of the house of the present applicant and the cabin of the original plaintiff. The photograph produced at Sr. No. 61, also shows the existence of only two doors and out of these two doors, one is a shutter. I have also perused the xerox copy of the map showing three gapes in front of the house of the present petitioner. From the xerox copy of the map, which is very illegible, it is difficult to come to a conclusion that, the said plan is passed by the Municipality or not? Therefore, I am not giving much importance to the said xerox copy of map. One fact is very certain that, no one has right to put any obstruction on the road, and that too near the wall of any person. I have also not given much importance to the fact that the petitioner is in proximity with any political party or not ? Merely by joining Municipality as party in the suit, and not joining the present petitioner, as party defendant, no effective hearing can take place, as the Municipality will not take much interest as it is a separate entity and having no interest in the property of the citizen who is suffering at the hands of a person who claims his right over the land which is not his own. ( 11 ) I have perused the order of the Ld. Trial Judge, rejecting the application of the present petitioner for joining him as a party defendant in the proceedings before the court below. I am of the opinion that, the Ld. Trial Judge has exercised the powers vested in him and simultaneously has not exercised the powers which are not vested in him. Effective hearing can take place, only on allowing the present petitioner to join as necessary party defendant in the proceedings in the court below. I am of the opinion that, the Ld. Trial Judge has exercised the powers vested in him and simultaneously has not exercised the powers which are not vested in him. Effective hearing can take place, only on allowing the present petitioner to join as necessary party defendant in the proceedings in the court below. Ever lasting effect will be done by ultimate hearing of the suit by the present respondent against the Municipality therefore, also it is in the interest of natural justice, to join the present petitioner as party defendant. ( 12 ) IN view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the opinion that, the interference of this Court is required to be made in the order passed by the Ld. Trial Judge while deciding the application of the present petitioner at Exh. 14. ( 13 ) THE Ld. Trial Judge has erred while dismissing the application of the petitioner given below Exh. . 14 and therefore, the order passed by the Ld. Trial Judge is quashed and set aside and the present petitioner permitted to join as party defendant in the proceedings of Civil Suit No. 74 of 1998, pending before the Civil Judge (J. D.), Jasdan. Accordingly this Civil Revision application is allowed. Rule is made absolute. .