1. Rule. Heard finally with the consent of the learned Counsel for the parties.

2. This writ petition at the instance of the original plaintiff takes exception to the order dated 2-4-2014 thereby deciding the preliminary issue as regards jurisdiction of the Civil Court to consider the reliefs sought in the plaint. The relevant facts are that according to the petitioner – plaintiff, there is a temple near his house in which various religious activities are regularly conducted. The respondent Nos.1 to 3 – defendant Nos.1 to 3 are having their residential house near said temple. In the month of May 2013, the petitioner noticed certain construction activities going on near the residential house of the respondent Nos.1 to 3. The petitioner learnt that a Hospital was being constructed at said place. According to the petitioner, the sanction for aforesaid construction that was granted by the respondent No.4 – Municipal Corporation was contrary to the building bye-laws. According to the plaintiff, said construction activity was likely to result in various difficulties to the persons residing in the vicinity of the same. The petitioner, therefore, filed suit for declaration that the construction undertaken by the defendants was illegal and the same violated the civil rights of the plaintiff. The prayer for permanent prohibitory injunction was also sought seeking to restrain the respondent Nos.1 to 3 from making any construction on the basis of the sanctioned plan. A mandatory injunction was also sought to stop the aforesaid illegal construction.

3. The respondent Nos.1 to 3 filed their written statement and opposed the reliefs as sought. An objection was taken to the tenability of the suit on the ground that jurisdiction of the Civil Court was barred in view of provisions of Section 149 of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 (for short the said Act). Similar stand was also taken by the respondent No.4 contending that the Civil Court had no jurisdiction to go into validity of the sanctioned plan.

4. The plaintiff moved an application for grant of temporary injunction. After the parties were heard on said application, the trial Court framed a preliminary issue as regards jurisdiction of the Civil Court to try and entertain the suit. Thereafter, by order dated 242014 the trial Court held that it had no jurisdiction to go into question of the permission granted by the Municipal Corporation to the respondent Nos.1 to 3 for construction of their building. It held that the Civil Court could not consider the question of illegality of the permission granted by the Municipal Corporation to the respondent Nos.1 to 3 for undertaking the construction. It held that the suit would be tried only on the aspect of construction being carried out in deviation of the sanctioned plan. It is this order that is impugned by the original plaintiff in the present writ petition.

5. Shri N. R. Bhishikar, the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the trial Court erred in declining to entertain the suit in so far as the relief sought for restraining the respondent Nos.1 to 3 from making any construction on the basis of the sanctioned plan is concerned. According to him, the suit as filed was perfectly tenable and the bar under Section 149 of the said Act was not at all attracted. He submitted that no statutory remedy under provisions of Section 47 of the said Act was available to the petitioner to challenge the action of the Municipal Corporation in approving the sanctioned plan. He submitted that as the petitioner was not an applicant as contemplated by Section 47 of the said Act, he was unable to file any appeal challenging the order granting permission to the respondent Nos.1 to 3 to undertake construction. As the said Act did not provide for any statutory remedy whatsoever, the civil suit was perfectly tenable. In support of the aforesaid submissions, the learned Counsel placed reliance on the following judgments:

[1]