JUDGMENT : [Ajit Kumar, J.] 1. Case called out in the revised call, learned counsel for the petitioner is present though Sri Pradip Chandra, learned Advocate has filed vakalatnama on behalf of Nagar Nigam, Agra but he is not present and Sri Amit Kumar Mishra has filed vakalatname on behalf of respondent No. 1 but he is also not present, however, they have filed counter-affidavit which is taken into consideration while deciding this petition. 2. The petitioner before this Court is a Resident Welfare Association styled as New Resident Agra Welfare Association and claimed to have form a society of the residents of the colony, which has been developed after due sanction of the map by the competent authority. 3. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that colony houses also a community hall, park for the use of residents of the colony, however since opposite party number 1 started using the premises in question for organizing marriages to the disadvantage of residents of the colony to enjoy park as an open space, the society made a complaint to the District Magistrate, Deputy Director General of Police, Agra, Vice Chairman of Agra Development Authority as well as Municipal Commissioner, Nagar Nigam respectively against illegal use of the premises in question and prayed that premises in question be cleared from the unauthorized occupants of marriage hall and park should be cleared for the purpose of use of residents and their children, consequently, the Nagar Nigam, Agra issued notice on 8.4.2010 respectively. 4. Earlier some spot inspection was conducted by the Junior Engineer of the Agra Development Authority and he had submitted a report that half park had got occupied and was being used in the name of marriage home or the banquet hall and that marriage hall was being run by one Surendra Sachdeva, S/o Ram Prakash Agarwal and Lalit Khatri in the name of New Agra Vikas Samiti who have been impleaded as plaintiff in the suit. 5. Municipal Commissioner, Nagar Nigam Agra passed an order to the Additional District Magistrate (City) Agra to seize the community hall by afternoon of 8.6.2010 and to ensure also maintenance of peace and law and order at the same time and appoint a Magistrate for the said purpose. 5. Municipal Commissioner, Nagar Nigam Agra passed an order to the Additional District Magistrate (City) Agra to seize the community hall by afternoon of 8.6.2010 and to ensure also maintenance of peace and law and order at the same time and appoint a Magistrate for the said purpose. Respondent No. 1 while filed an affidavit before Nagar Nigam, Agra that premises in question was not being used since after 19th July, 2010 as a marriage hall but at the same time instituted a suit to get the order passed by the Municipal Commissioner, Nagar Nigam Agra dated 29.5.2010 declared as illegal and not affecting the plaintiff as well. The decree for permanent injunction was also sought in favour of plaintiff restraining defendant, Nagar Nigam from putting any seal upon community hall and the temple of the New Agra Vikas Samiti. 6. The present petitioner moved an impleadment application in the said suit under Order 1 Rule 10 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 on the ground that they were necessary parties as entire action impugned in the suit had been taken upon complaint made by the petitioner. The said application was considered by the trial Court and ultimately rejected vide order dated 3.11.2010 and the revision filed against the said application has also come to be dismissed. Both the Courts have held that petitioner was neither necessary party nor, proper party as the injunction was sought to the effect that sealing order may not be passed in respect of Satsang Bhawan and temple claimed by the plaintiff and since there was no other samiti of the area was party so there was no question of impleading the present petitioner as a party inasmuch as, the Courts have held that for deciding the issue of injunction may be in the nature of perpetual injunction as against the Nagar Nigam, there was no necessity to implead the present petitioners as defendants in the suit. The Courts have further held that petitioner failed to put up any such case as to what would be his role as a third party and any of his interests was going to be prejudiced. 7. The Courts have further held that petitioner failed to put up any such case as to what would be his role as a third party and any of his interests was going to be prejudiced. 7. Assailing the orders impugned in this petition, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has argued that petitioner is a registered welfare association of the residents of the colony that has come up into existence after due sanction of the development authority and the park has been provided for the use of the residents of the area and their children and it is shown in the map and in the records of the Nagar Nigam. He has submitted that the action was initiated by the Nagar Nigam only at the instance of the petitioners who are an association of the residents of the colony in question and all these pleas were specifically taken in the application filed by the present petitioner seeking impleadment as a party in the suit and the documents that were brought on record were regarding complete sanctioned map of the New Agra Colony, the judgment of the Supreme Court alongwith the application and therefore, the Courts below were not justified in not appreciating these documents and the averments made in the impleadment application while passing the orders impugned rejecting the application for impleadment. 8. A counter-affidavit has been filed in this case countering the submission raised in this petition and respondents contested the case of impleadment on the merits of the claim set up in the plaint. It is sought to be submitted through counter-affidavit that they were a society and complaint filed by the Mukesh Agarwal against the respondents before Deputy Director Registrar, Societies regarding registration of their society, has come to be rejected. 9. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner and having perused the pleadings raised before this Court by the respective parties, I find the issue to be one; whether petitioner before this Court in the given facts and circumstances of the case, is a necessary party or a proper party to allow his impleadment in the suit. 10. From bare reading of the plaint case, I find that notice issued by the Municipal Commissioner, Nagar Nigam dated 29.5.2010 was sought to be declared as illegal and not effecting the plaintiff and further relief claimed is that of permanent injunction. 11. 10. From bare reading of the plaint case, I find that notice issued by the Municipal Commissioner, Nagar Nigam dated 29.5.2010 was sought to be declared as illegal and not effecting the plaintiff and further relief claimed is that of permanent injunction. 11. The plaint case is however that temple always existed there since 1965 known as a Radha Krishana Mandhir and it was with permission of the then Nagar Maha Nagar Palika, Agra that community hall was also constructed and the expenses and construction thereof was incurred both by the residents of the New Agra Colony and the Nagar Maha Palika, Agra and since anti social elements were occupying the area, the committee got it converted into beautiful park and the premises in question was being used for organizing summer camp for children of lower and backward classes of the family every year which was a charitable work and marriage of their daughters were being organized. It was also claimed that in the records of Nagar Palika, a park with temple was very much recorded and so it was claimed that it was being used for public purposes and not for private purposes and hence the plaintiff being involved in a charitable work, their activities must not be interfered with. 12. In any housing society whether A is society or B is a society, it hardly matters for securing ecological balance if the public utility place like park, lakes, ponds are provided. These public places can never be owned by any private individual, may be a registered society because all such property vests in the concerned Nagar Nigam or Maha Nagar Palika and where development authority has been constituted the management of such park is at times vested with such development authorities. The object is only to ensure that public utility places are used by public at large as these are meant for their beneficial use. 13. In this case where order under challenge in suit proceeding is of Municipal Commissioner, Nagar Nigam Agra to ensure that public park is not being utilized by anti social elements, no DJ music is blown and fire crackers is burst over the place so as to disturbed public peace and tranquility in the colony, the said order had in fact been passed in public interest. The petitioner had in the past moved such application to secure justice for people and, therefore, if order passed in public interest was challenged in suit proceedings then such person or complainants who had made complaint in public interest would become if not a necessary but at least a proper party. 14. The concept of party being impleaded as a proper party is that litigation be brought to a conclusive end. So even in a suit for injunction where subject-matter in issue is a public property as in the present case as per plaintiff's own case as there was construction of temple and construction of community hall for residents of the area and was claimed to have been built up with concurrence Mahapalika Parishad, Agra, the relief claimed would of course, be set up on the basis of public interest. The petitioner before this Court had also approached in public interest and it was for that purpose that the petitioner had moved application to become party in the suit. Order 1 Rule 8 A of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 sufficiently empowers the Court to permit a person or a body of person to present his or its opinion on the question of law if it found it to be necessary in public interest. Any injunction if issued in favour of the plaintiff in the present case would certainly hit the interest of petitioner who forms a society of the residents of area in their interest which is a public interest. An affidavit had been filed by the plaintiff before Nagar Nigam, Agra, that they would not to be using a community hall for any marriages purposes whereas contrary pleadings had been raised in the plaint that the marriage used to be organized of the people belonging to be lower caste or economical weaker sections. 15. An affidavit had been filed by the plaintiff before Nagar Nigam, Agra, that they would not to be using a community hall for any marriages purposes whereas contrary pleadings had been raised in the plaint that the marriage used to be organized of the people belonging to be lower caste or economical weaker sections. 15. Thus in view of above therefore, in my view it is a case where it would be necessary to implead the present petitioner in the suit as one of the defendants to enable the Court to completely adjudicate and settle the questions of law involved as to the legality of the order dated 29.5.2010 issued by the Municipal Commissioner, Nagar Nigam, Agra in public interest and right to injunction as against the Nagar Nigam claimed by the plaintiff in respect of a park that houses temple and the community hall which is a public property meant for public use. 16. In my above view, I find support from the judgment of this Court in the case of Sujata Gandhi v. S.B.Gandhi, 2020(6) ADJ 368 , as well as judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Anil Kumar Singh v. Shivnath Mishra, 1995 (3) SCC 147 . 17. In view of above, I am not able to sustain the order passed by the trial Court 3.11.2010 as well as Court sitting in revision dated 14.5.2013 and are accordingly set aside. The impleadment application of the petitioner is allowed. Let the petitioner be impleaded as one of the defendants in the suit. 18. The petitioner shall have opportunity to file written statement and to contest the suit on merits. Since the suit is of the year 2010, it is hereby provided that the impleamdnet shall be carried out in the suit of the present petitioner as defendant No. 2 within one month from the date of filing of copy of this order. The petitioner shall have an opportunity to file written statement within two months. Replication to that, if any, may be filed within six weeks thereafter. The issue shall be framed by the trial Court, if already not framed, within a month thereafter. The plaintiff shall have opportunity to conclude their evidence within three months and thereafter defendants shall have opportunity to conclude their evidence within next three months. Thereafter the trial Court shall proceed to decide the suit within next six months. 19. The issue shall be framed by the trial Court, if already not framed, within a month thereafter. The plaintiff shall have opportunity to conclude their evidence within three months and thereafter defendants shall have opportunity to conclude their evidence within next three months. Thereafter the trial Court shall proceed to decide the suit within next six months. 19. This petition stands disposed of in terms of above observations and directions but without any order as to cost.