' The plaintiff-respondent is alleged to have constructed a double storey on spaces which were required to be left vacant under the Scheme prepared by the Lahore Improvement Trust. On a complaint made by the petitioner the Improvement Trust issued notice directing the plaintiff- respondent to demolish the portion so constructed. The plaintiff-respondent filed a suit to challenge this notice. A temporary injunction was issued by the Court 1,4straining the defendants- respondents from demolishing these constructions. On the 11th October, 1969, about 11 months of the filing of the suit, an application under Order 1, Rule 10 C.P.C. Was submitted the petitioner for being impleaded as a party on the ground that the constructions having infringed the right of privacy and other easement rights and action by the Improvement Trust having been taken at her instance she was a necessary party to the suit. This application was dismissed by the impugned order, dated the 17th December, 1969. It was held by the learned trial Court that the only point in the present 'suit was about the validity of the notices issued by the Improvement Trust. If, however, some right of the applicant was violated her proper remedy was to file her own suit.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the grounds given above in support of her case the petitioner has to be impleaded as a party. He relied upon National Bank of Pakistan v.
Muzammal Hussain (PLD 1965 Karachi 633) and Seth Umed Mal v. Chand Mal (AIR 1926 Privy Council 142). The purport of both these authorities appears to be that where any relief- granted or liable to be granted affects the intervener, the intervener may be impleaded as a party to the suit.
There is no cavil with this position of law. If the petitioner's rights are in any way affected, the petitioner would be a necessary or at least a proper. Party to the suit.
3. This principle will not apply, however, in the present case. I agree with the learned trial Judge that the fate of the suit may depend upon validity or invalidity of the notices. This suit is not for deciding the rights of the plaintiff vis-a-vis the petitioner. In these circumstances, the petitioner is neither a necessary nor a proper party to the suit. It is not clear to me from the arguments of the learned counsel how the petitioner's right of privacy or even the right of air and light is affected but in any case, if it is so affected, the petitioner's remedy is not by this application but is by a separate suit.
4. The petition is without merit and is dismissed. Since the learned counsel for the Lahore Improvement Trust is not interested in opposing the petition, I leave the parties to bear their own costs.