( 1 ) THE plaintiff is the appellant. The suit is filed for an injunction restraining the defendants from interferring with peaceful possession and enjoyment of the joint passage and also restraining the 1st defendant from demolishing the constructions made and closing the joint passage. The 1st defendant is the Hyderabad Municipal Corporation and the 2nd defendant is the owner of the neighbouring land. The averments in the plaint are that the plaintiff filed an application accompanied by plans on 1-6-1968 for Issuance of a permit for construction of mulgies. In the absence of response from the 1st defendant the plaintiff started construction as per the proposed plan after expiry of 30 days and after giving notice to the 1st defendant under Section 440 the Hyderabad municipal Corporation Act (hereinafter referred to as H. M. C Act) subsequently, however, the 1st defendant issued a permit date 21-11-1968 with some alterations in the proposed plan. Thereupon, the plaintiff sent a reply stating that the alteration of the plan is not in accordance with law. Despite the same, the 1st defendant issued notice under section 636 of H M C Act to which the plaintiff sent a reply dated 9-6-69 through an advocate. The Corporation staff visited the construction site and called upon the plaintiff to dismantle the construction which is in deviation of the sanctioned plan. Thereupon the plaintiff filed the suit for an injunction restraining the Municipal [corporation from demolishing the structure. The plea of the defendant No. 1 is that the plaintiff submitted an application along with plans on 1 6-1968 for construction and it was refused on 23-8-1968 with certain remarks. Thereupon, the plaintiff again submitted an application along with plans on 4,11 1968 for sanction. The defendant sanctioned the permission as per the corrected plan and the same was received by the plaintiff on 26-11-1968. The plaintiff started construction subsequent to the issuance of permit on 26-11-1968 The plaintiff constucted a wall touching the Mosque wall which is contrary to the sanctioned plan and also opened doors in contravention of the sanctioned plan. For the removal of the said deviations, notices under sections 461 452 and 636 of HMC Act were issued to the pleintiff on 22-4-1969 30-4-1969 and 30-5-1969. The defendant denied that after expiry of 30 days from the date of the filing the initial application for permission, the construction was started after giving notice under Sec. 440 of the HMC act. It is also pleaded that the suit is hit by section 685 of the H M C Act as the suit is filed without waiting for the statutory period of 30 days after issue of notice as provided under section 685 of the Act and as such the suit is liable to be rejected under Order 47 Rule 11 C P C. The registered notice dated 7 6-1969 was sent by registered post by the plaintiff on 8-6-1969 and the suit was filed on 10-6. 1969 without waiting for the expiry of period of one month next after the notice in writing has been given to the Municipal Corporation. The trial court held that the suit is hit under the provisions of Section 685 (1) of Hyderabad municipal Corporation Act as the plaintiff did not wait till the expiration of one month period. The trial court dismissed the suit as against 1s defendant holding that the suit is not maintainable and granted a decres against the 2nd defendant. As the 2nd defendant did not file any appea the decree to. that extent has become final. The plaintiff, aggrieved by the judgment in favour of the 1st defendant, preferred an appeal and the learned Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad confirmed the judgment of the trial court. The appellate court also considered whethe the notice under Section 440 of the H. M. C. Act was given with regard to the commencement of the work pursuant to the plan submitted initially and whether the actions of the staff of the Hyderabad Corporation are actuated by mala fides and as such th