The jurisdiction of the Civil Court cannot be excluded unless expressly or impliedly provided by law, and the Court must decide the preliminary issue on jurisdiction based on specific objections raised by the parties.

G.S. KULKARNI, J.

1. The Appellants Plaintiffs have filed this appeal challenging the order dated 7 March 2012 passed by the learned Judge, City Civil Court at Bombay, on a draft Notice of Motion in L.C.Suit no.1039 of 2012. By the impugned order, the learned Trial Judge has rejected the Notice of Motion, taken out by the appellants seeking a relief of a temporary injunction. The learned Trial Judge further directed that the plaint be returned to be presented before proper forum.

2. The Appellants' suit is for declaratory and injunctionary reliefs. The prayers as made in the plaint are as under:

"a. That this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to declare that the Application and proposal submitted to SRA (Defendant no.7) by Defendant no.3 (Joseph Santimano) on behalf of Defendant No.2 (Nisarg CHS) for implementing DCR33(10) scheme on 'Suit Property' is illegal, null, void and this Honourable Court further be pleased to quash and set aside the said DCR33(10) proposal of Defendant no.2 on 'Suit property'.

b. That this Honourable Court may be pleased to declare that the impugned Certificate of ANNEXUREII dated 13.09.2006 issued in respect of the 'Suit Property' by Defendant No.1 cannot be enforced, implemented on 'Suit Property' in any manner and this Honourable Court be further pleased to quash and set aside the said certificate of Annexure-II.

c. That this Honourable Court may be pleased to declare that the First LOI dated 9th August 2007 and subsequent Revised LOI dated 9th March,2011 and subsequent development permissions issued on 'Suit Property' by SRA are illegal, null and void and this Honourable Court be further pleased to quash and set aside the said First LOI dated 9th August,2007 and subsequent Revised LOI dated 9th March,2011, issued in respect of the 'Suit property' by SRA.

d. That the Honouable Court be pleased to grant an order of permanent injunction against Defendant Nos.1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 7 from implementing, enforcing the revised LOI dated 09.03.2011 and Certificate of Annexure-II on 'suit property' in any manner.

e. Pending the hearing and final disposal of this Suit, this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to pass an order of temporary injunction staying the effect, operation and implementation of the Certificate of ANNEXURE II and Revised LOI dated 9th March, 2011 in respect of the 'Suit Property' in any manner.

f. Pending the hearing and final disposal of this Suit, this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to pass an order of temporary injunction restraining the Defendant Nos.1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 7 from entering into the 'suit property' and/or acting upon or implementing the Certificate of ANNEXURE II and/or Revised LOI dated 9th March,2011 in any manner on the 'Suit Property'.

g. Interim and ad-interim reliefs in terms of prayer clauses (c) and (f) above may be granted in favour of the Plaintiffs;

h. Cost of the suit be provided for;

i. Any other relief as this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper may be granted in the facts and circumstances of the case;"

3. As seen from the averments in the plaint the dispute pertains to a 'slum rehabilitation scheme' alleged to be undertaken on land C.S.No.89(pt), Matunga Division, F/North Ward, G.T.B.Nagar, Sion Koliwada, Mumbai, admeasuring 2165.47 sq.meters (suit property). The case of the Plaintiffs is that the land belongs to the Municipal Corporation for Greater Mumbai. The Slum Rehabilitation Authority had carried out census of hutments and had issued photo passes in respect of the structures situated on the said land. There is an adjoining plot bearing C.S.no.88 (pt.), which also had 67 number of structures thereon and which admeasures 1405.07 sq.meters. It is the case of the Appellants that this land belongs to the Central Government. The Appellants have impleaded the Assistant Commissioner of Municipal Corporation as Defendant No.1, the Municipal Corporation for Greater Mumbai as Defendant No.6, the Slum Rehabilitation Authority as Defendant No.7 and the State of Maharashtra as Defenda