1. Rule.

Rule made returnable forthwith.

Heard finally by consent of the learned counsel appearing for the parties.

2. By this revision application, the order dated 16.08.2016 passed below Exhs.8, 11 and 28 by 6th Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division, Nagpur, has been challenged. By this order, the applications vide Exhs. 8, 11 and 28, all of which took an exception to the jurisdiction of the Civil Court to try the suit in present form were rejected. The revision applicant is the original defendant No.3 and his application raising a plea of bar of jurisdiction under Section 9A of C.P.C vide Exh.28 has been rejected.

3. On perusal of the impugned order as well as the pleadings of the parties, I find that the foundation of the suit is the notice issued under Section 53(1) of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act (in short M.R.T.P. Act) by the respondent Nos. 2 and 3. It is the contention of the original plaintiff i.e. respondent No.1 that this notice is illegal because it has been issued by the Municipal Corporation Officials in collusion with the revision applicant, who is the neighbour of respondent No.1. The respondent No.1 has contended that this applicant had encroa