ARIHANT CONSTRUCTION Vs. SUBHASH KESHARMAL BARLOTA AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the Applicant, learned counsel for Respondent No.1 and learned counsel for Respondent Nos.2 and 3 finally with consent.

(2.) Respondent No.1 (original Plaintiff hereafter referred as "Plaintiff") has filed Regular Civil Suit No.41 of 2014 before Civil Judge, Senior Division, Corporation Court, Aurangabad against Planning Authority Respondent Nos.2 and 3 (original Defendant Nos.1 and 2 hereafter referred as "Defendant Nos.1 and 2") and present Applicant, arrayed in the Suit as Defendant No.3 (hereafter referred as "Defendant"). The Suit filed is for suspension/cancellation of permission of construction issued by the Municipal Corporation and Assistant Director of Town Planning (Defendant Nos.1 and 2) in favour of the Defendant No.3 on 21st March 2014. The Plaintiff claimed suspension/cancellation of the permission of construction and consequential relief of mandatory injunction to demolish the construction made in view of the permission and also has claimed perpetual injunction that Defendant No.3 should not carry out any construction over the suit plot. Plaintiff filed application for temporary injunction also. Defendant No.3 filed written statement and interalia claimed that the suit was barred in view of Section 149 of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 ("the Act" in brief). In view of the question of jurisdiction of Civil Court being raised, trial Court framed preliminary issue Whether the Civil Court is having jurisdiction to decide subject matter of the present suit. The trial Court answered the same in the affirmative holding that it has jurisdiction and held that the suit can proceed further. Against the said impugned order of the trial Court dated 6th August 2014, the present Revision has been filed.

(3.) To put it in nutshell, the objections raised by the Defendant No.3 are that the Plaintiff is trying to say that the Plaintiff has title to the suit property and thus the Municipal Corporation should not have granted the permission of construction and the Suit has limited prayer for cancellation of the permission and consequential reliefs sought are of mandatory and permanent injunction and thus it is claimed that the Suit is not maintainable in view of Section 149 of the Act.