The District Court has no jurisdiction to grant preventive relief under section 286(5) of the City of Nagpur Corporation Act, 1948. The power of the District Court under section 286(5) is limited to granting an injunction for the removal or alteration of any building constructed in contravention of the provisions of the Act or the bye-laws made thereunder.

JUDGEMENT - R.M. LODHA, J.:---This revision application is directed against the order passed by the Additional District Judge, Nagpur, on 15-12-1993, whereby he confirmed the ad interim injunction granted on 18-12-1992 on the application filed by Dureshnarayan Ramnarayan Jaiswal (non-applicant No. 1 herein) under section 286(5) of the City of Nagpur Corporation Act, 1948.

2. The only contention raised by the learned Counsel for the applicants in this revision application is that the Additional District Judge, Nagpur, had no jurisdiction to pass the preventive injunction on the application filed under section 286(5) of the City of Nagpur Corporation Act, 1948, and therefore, the impugned order passed by the Additional District Judge, Nagpur, is liable to be set aside.

3. On the other hand, Shri Voditel, the learned Counsel for the non-applicant No.1, submits that in the application filed by the non-applicant No. 1 under section 286(5) of the City of Nagpur Corporation Act the main relief was that non-applicant Nos. 1 and 2, if raised any construction by contravening the provisions of the City of Nagpur Corporation Act and the Building Bye laws made thereunder, the same be pulled down and the illegal construction carried out by the non-applicants, be removed. Shri Voditel submits that since the construction was going on, the interim relief by way of ad interim injunction against the present applicants was prayed for calling upon them to stop the illegal construction, pending disposal of the application under section 286(5) of the City of Nagpur Corporation Act..

4. It would be seen that the present non-applicant No.1 Durgeshnarayan made an application under section 286(5) of the City of Nagpur Corporation Act, 1948, before the District Judge, Nagpur, on 18-12-1992. In the said application, said Durgeshnarayan averred that he was the owner of Municipal House No. 701 situated in Somwari Bazar Road, Sitabuldi, Nagpur, and the adjoining house was owned and possessed by the present applicants, viz., Ashok Anantram Chaurasia and Smt. Shivrani widow of Anantram Chaurasia. According to Durgeshnarayan, the present applicants have undertaken re-construction of their house adjoining his house without obtaining requisite sanction from the Commissioner of Nagpur Municipal Corporation. As stated above, said Durgeshnarayan prayed in the application that by grant of an ad interim injunction against the present applicants, they be directed to stop all construction activities being undertaken by them pending disposal of the application under section 286(5) of the City of Nagpur Corporation Act, 1948, and after hearing the parties be pleased to confirm the injunction against the present applicants and further orders be passed for pulling down all the construction carried out by them. It appears that the Additional District Judge, Nagpur, by way of an ad interim measure by an order dated 18-12-1992 issued ad interim injunction restraining the present applicants from carrying on the construction touching to the north wall of the house of Durgeshnarayan (non-applicant No.1 herein) till further orders and a show cause notice was issued returnable on 30-12-1992 as to why ad interim order passed by the Court on 18-12-1992 be not made absolute.

5. The present applicants filed their written statement before the Court below and submitted that they have not carried any construction work touching the north wall of the house of Durgeshnarayan. According to them, it was at least 3 feet away from the construction work of the house of Durgeshnarayan. The present applicants in the written statement before the Court below also averred that their construction was legal and was in accordance with the building plan approved by the Commissioner. The present applicants also set up the defence that the application filed by Durgeshnarayan was mala fide, based on incorrect information and, therefore, liable to be dismissed and the ad interim order passed by the Court on 18-1

Click Here to Read the rest of this document