JAHARLAL SHAW Vs. CORPORATION OF CALCUTTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is by the Plaintiff and it arises out of a suit, which was, in substance, a suit for a permanent injunction, restraining the Respondents and their agents and servants from proceeding with the demolition work of the disputed building.

(2.) The suit has been dismissed by the learned trial Judge on a preliminary ground and it has not been tried out on merits. The preliminary point, which arose before the learned trial Judge, was that the suit was bad and not maintainable in law, as there was no service of notice under Sec. 586 of the Calcutta Municipal Act, 1951 and as, further, there was no service of notice under Sec. 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure on Defendant No. 2, the City Architect of Defendant No. 1, Corporation of Calcutta and there was no proper or timely service of such notice oh the added Defendant No. 3, the Commissioner to the Corporation of Calcutta.

(3.) In this appeal, it has been contended by Mr. Banerjee that the learned trial Judge was wrong in his view that a suit of the present description must be preceded by a notice under Sec. 586 of the Calcutta Municipal Act.