VORA AUTOMOTIVES PVT LTD Vs. GOPALRAO NAMDEORAO POHRE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE applicant is an owner of a double-storeyed building located on a suit plot. The non-applicants 1 to 8 purchased an adjoining plot situated on the western side of the suit plot. To construct a commercial complex, they obtained sanction to the plan under Section 189 of the Maharashtra Municipalities Act, 1965 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act of 1965'), from Municipal Council, Akola (non-applicant No. 9 ). According to the applicant, the sanction as accorded is contrary to the standardized bye-laws and development control rules. The open space of 10 feet, as required, has not been kept. The Municipal Council while granting sanction ignored the objections raised by the applicant. The Collector, therefore, in exercise of powers under Section 308 of the Act of 1965, by order dated 27-7-1991 directed the Municipal Council to consider the objections. However, the Municipal Council did not give any heed.

(2.) THE applicant, therefore, on 22-6-1991 filed a suit claiming a decree of injunction against non-applicants 1 to 8 restraining them from making construction as per the plan alleged to have been approved on 30-4-1991 particularly within 10 feet space adjoining to western side of the suit property. Further they claimed a mandatory injunction against the Municipal Council directing them to perform their mandatory duty to consider the question of permission only in accordance with law and direct non-applicants 1 to 8 not to make any construction within 10 feet open space touching the boundary of the applicant's property. The applicant also prayed for temporary injunction. However, the trial Court by order dated 9-9-1991 rejected the application. However, the non-applicants 1 to 8 had been directed to maintain status-quo. The applicant, therefore, filed an appeal against the order refusing to grant temporary injunction, whereas the non-applicants 1 to 8 questioned the order directing them to maintain status-quo. The appellate Court by order dated 31-12-1991 dismissed the appeal presented by the applicant and allowed the appeal of the non-applicants 1 to 8. Hence, this revision application by the original plaintiff.

(3.) THE question involved in this revision is whether the Civil Court possesses jurisdiction to try the suit for the relief as claimed. Undisputedly, Act of 1965 does not incorporate any express bar ousting the jurisdiction of the Civil Court. Now it is to be ascertained whether there is an ouster to the jurisdiction of the Civil Court by necessary implication ?