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.

4. I have heard counsel for both sides. The counsel for Applicant original Defendant No.3 claimed that the Suit filed by the Plaintiff refers to an old litigation relating to properties of Salarjung and Plaintiff claims to have acquired title on the basis of purchase of decree which was not executed. According to learned counsel, the Defendant No.3 purchased the suit property from one Mrs. Jayashree Admane, member of Venkateshnagar Cooperative Housing Society. The C.T.S. records for last many years showed clear title and there was no litigation about the title and Defendant No. 3 had purchased suit property after verifying title. The present dispute has been raised only when Defendant No.3 applied for permission of construction. According to the learned counsel, the Suit filed by the Plaintiff does not claim declaration of title of the Plaintiff. The Suit does not show that the Plaintiff was in possession before or when the Suit was filed. The Suit does not even claim possession and according to the counsel, the only relief sought is cancellation of the permission of construction and the Suit is thus, according to him, not maintainable. Under Section 149 of the Act there is finality to the orders passed by the Planning or Development Authority under this Act and grant of commencement certificate is under Section 45 of the Act and thus Civil Court has no jurisdiction to consider whether or not the order granting permission of construction is correct, legal or proper.

5. Against this, learned counsel for Respondent No. 1 Plaintiff has claimed that the Suit as has been filed, is maintainable in the Civil Court. According to him, the Plaintiff has title to the property and Defendant does not have title