1. This application is preferred by the Kalyan Dombivli Municipal Corporation the original defendant, seeking to challenge the order passed by the Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division Kalyan below Exhibit 30 holding that the suit filed by the plaintiff/respondent is not barred by Section 149 of the Maharashtra Regional Town Planning Act (In brief ’M.R.T.P.Act’) and the plaint is not liable to be rejected under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Civil Procedure Code.

2. To state in brief, it is the case of the plaintiff/respondent that he is resident of Kalyan city and has also some property within the limits of Municipal Corporation. The defendant/Corporation is the local authority and is also planning authority for the corporation area under the Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporations Act, 1949 and under the M.R.T.P. Act. It is contended that this Corporation was constituted on 1-10-1983. Even before that there was development plan prepared in the year 1980 for Kalyan, which is within the local limits of the Corporation. According to the plaintiff, that plan is still in existence and no directions were issued to modify the plan. However, on 5-12-1996, the defendant/Corporation prepared a Draft Development Plan and notified the same in the Gazette on 5-12-1996. The objections were called by 3rd February, 1997 from the aggrieved parties. According to the plaintiff, he and some other persons had raised certain objections about the said development plant. However, no attempt was made by the Corporation to redress the grievances of these persons. It is contended that draft Development Plan was not prepared as per the procedure laid down under the M.R.T.P. Act. It is also not within the period of limitation and its period has not been extended. It was contended that the draft Development Plan was sanctioned by the Mayor, who was not the Competent Authority and it was also not published in local newspapers. With these allegations, the plaintiff filed suit seeking several reliefs. Mainly he sought declaration that the draft Development Plan published in the official Gazette on 5-12-1996 is illegal and ultra vires of the M.R.T.P. Act. He also sought perpetual injunction restraining the Municipal Corporation from taking any action on the basis of the draft Development Plan. He filed the suit as representative suit under Order 1 Rule 8 and accordingly notice was published. In the view of the said notice, one Nandkumar Sonavane also joined as a plaintiff. Plaintiff also filed an application, Exhibit 5 for seeking temporary injunction of the same nature.

3. Municipal Corporation resisted the suit by filing written statement and at the same time, also filed an application Exhibit 27 contending that the notice/draft plan published on 5-12-1996 had reached its finality and in view of the provisions of Section 149 of the M.R.T.P. Act, such order or notice can not be questioned in any suit or legal proceeding and, therefore, the suit is not tenable. In view of this, no cause of action is disclosed and the plaint is liable to be rejected under Order 7 Rule 11.

4. In view of this application and the objection taken by the defendant about the tenability of the suit, trial Court framed preliminary issues and heard the parties. After hearing the parties, the learned trial Court rejected the contention of the defendant/Corporation that the suit is barred under Section 149 of the M.R.T.P.Act. In the result, the said application came to be rejected. Hence, this Revision Application by the Defendant/Corporation.

5. Heard the learned counsel for the Parties.

6. From the pleadings in the plaint, it is clear that plaintiff has challenged the legality and vires of the Draft Development Plan published on 5-12-1996. According to the plaintiff, this Draft Development Plan has not been prepared as per the provisions of M.R.T.P. Act and, therefore, it is illegal and liable to be set asi