ORDER : Since common questions of law and facts are involved in all these appeals, by the consent of the learned advocates for the parties, they are taken up together for hearing. 2. These appeals are filed against a common order passed by the Hon’ble Single Judge allowing a batch of writ petitions filed by the applicants for addition of parties before the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal, for brevity) and directing their addition in the appeals before the Tribunal. 3. The litigation has a chequered history. Adjacent owners residing in Cunningham Cross Road, Bengaluru, are fighting to establish their respective rights concerning a construction put up in premises bearing No.40, Cunningham Cross Road. 4. It is an admitted position that the residents of Cunningham Cross Road have formed a Forum known as ‘Citizens Forum for Safe Environment,’ (hereinafter referred to as the Forum, for short) of which they are the members. 5. The owner of the premises bearing No.40, Cunningham Cross Road, allegedly made a construction in violation of the sanctioned building plan. 6. The Forum and some of its members filed a complaint before the Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike. 7. Our understanding of the Forum is that it is nothing but an assured name by a group of persons, who have assembled themselves under one umbrella. 8. However, the Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike issued a notice under Section 321(1) of the Karnataka Municipal Corporations Act, 1976, asking the person responsible for the violation, to answer. Ultimately, on September 17, 2014, an order of demolition of the unauthorized structure was passed. 9. The person responsible for the alleged unauthorized construction preferred an appeal and obtained an order of status quo. 10. An application is filed by the Forum and some of its members seeking for their additions as parties in the appeal. The Tribunal rejected their application, but the Hon’ble Single Judge allowed the application. 11. Mr. D.L.N.Rao and Mr. Ananth Mandagi, learned senior advocates appearing for the appellants, strenuously argues that the application filed by the Forum was not maintainable as it is not a body corporate. It is submitted that an unregistered body cannot maintain a writ petition. 12. The Tribunal rejected their application, but the Hon’ble Single Judge allowed the application. 11. Mr. D.L.N.Rao and Mr. Ananth Mandagi, learned senior advocates appearing for the appellants, strenuously argues that the application filed by the Forum was not maintainable as it is not a body corporate. It is submitted that an unregistered body cannot maintain a writ petition. 12. Secondly, it is submitted, relying upon a decision of the Supreme Court of India, in the case of RAMESH HIRACHAND KUNDANMAL versus MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF GREATER BOMBAY AND OTHERS reported in (1992) 2 Supreme Court Cases 524 that complainants are not necessary and proper parties in such a proceeding. 13. Mr.D.L.N.Rao has cited a decision of the Delhi High Court in the case of HARDAYAL SINGH MEHTA AND ANOTHER versus MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, DELHI AND OTHERS reported in AIR 1990 DELHI 170 to contend that the Tribunal has no power to add anyone except the Corporation. 14. We first deal with the judgment in Hardayal Singh Mehta (supra). In the said case, the Delhi High Court was dealing with the provisions of the Delhi Municipal Corporations Act, and held that the Tribunal had no power to add anyone except the Corporation. 15. In the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal Regulations, 1979, Regulation 40 (a) expressly provides for the power of the Tribunal to add any party at any stage of the proceeding. Thus, the judgment in the case of Hardayal Singh Mehta has no application to the facts of this case. 16. Now, let us deal with the decision in the case of Ramesh Hirachand Kundanmal (supra). In a suit, the issue was whether the complainant was a ‘necessary or a proper party’ to be joined as the defendant. The Supreme Court of India recorded that a party could not be added, unless it has been proved that his presence was necessary for the effectual and complete adjudication of the dispute. 17. The judgment in the case of Ramesh Hirachand Kundanmal is also distinguishable, as the complainants who sought to add them as parties did not raise any objection as to the two chattels on the terrace stated to have been erected by the owner of the property. It was established on facts that the chattels were movable and meant for storing implements of the mechanics. 18. It was established on facts that the chattels were movable and meant for storing implements of the mechanics. 18. We are of the opinion that the power to add a party to a proceeding is not of initial jurisdiction, but of a discretionary nature. 19. We feel that some of the residents of the locality have pointed out that another resident of the same locality has constructed a building in deviation of the sanctioned building plan. The municipal authorities have passed an order of demolition. Against it, an appeal was filed by the residents and there is an order of status quo. 20. There is no attempt on the part of the authorities of the Mahanagara Palike to get that order vacated and get the alleged unauthorized construction demolished. 21. Under the apprehension that the matter may not be pursued before the Tribunal properly, some of the complainants have come forward seeking for their addition as parties. 22. The Hon’ble Single Judge, in exercise of his sound discretion, felt that they are proper parties. We, also, feel that no prejudice will be caused to the appellants if those persons are added as parties before the Tribunal. On the contrary, better justice is always done if a lis is decided upon a contested hearing. 23. We are, therefore, not inclined to interfere with the discretion exercised by the Hon’ble Single Judge in directing addition of parties. 24. All the appeals are, therefore, dismissed. 25. We make no order as to costs.