( 1 ) THIS appeal is against the judgment and decree passed on 28. 2. 1983 by Additional District Judge, Delhi dismissing the appellant s appeal and thereby confirming the judgment and decree passed on 21. 7. 1980 by Shri P. D. Jarwal, Sub-Judge 1st Class, Delhi decreeing the suit of the plaintiff/respondent.

( 2 ) FACTS in brief are that Shri Ashok Diesh filed a suit seeking decree for injunction against the defendant/appellant from demolishing the property bearing Nos. 95, 97, 99, 101 and 103 situated at Baird Road, New Delhi. The plaintiff alleged that the property was inherited by him and Shri Janardan Diesh and was assessed to municipal taxes. Certain officials of the appellant came to the spot on 18. 11. 1978 with a view to demolish the portion of the property shown in red colour without any notice. They were appraised that the property is old one and no new constructions were made. Since they were adamant to demolish the property, a cause had accrued to him to claim decree for injunction.

( 3 ) THE suit was resisted by the appellant on merits and preliminary objections were also raised that the suit was barred in a civil court in view of Section 225 of the Punjab Municipal Act, 1911 and the suit was not maintainable in view of Section 41 of the Specific Relief Act. It was admitted that the officials of N. D. M. C. had gone to the spot on 28. 11. 1978 but it was pleaded that only after notice under Sections 195 and 195-A of the Punjab Municipal Act, which were duly served on the plaintiff, who had made new construction without permission. Therefore, N. D. M. C. was within its right to take action for demolition. The following issues were framed by the trial court :-

1. Whether the threatened action of the defendant is illegal, ultra vires and without jurisdiction ? D. P. P. 2. Whether the suit barred under Section 225 of the Punjab Municipal Act and under Section 41 of the Specific Relief Act ? D. P. D. 3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the injunction prayed for ? D. P. P. 4. Relief.

( 4 ) ON issue No. 1, the trial court found that the plaintiff had not carried out any unauthorised construction, therefore, threatened action of N. D. M. C. was illegal and ultra vires and without jurisdiction. On issue No. 2, it was held that the suit was not barred under Section 225 of the Punjab Municipal Act, 1911 and Section 41 of the Specific Relief Act. In view of the findings on issue Nos. 1 and 2, it was held that the plaintiff was entitled to injunction prayed for. Accordingly, decree prayed for was granted in favour of the respondent and against the appellant from demolishing any portion of the property bearing No. 101 and 103 situated at Baird Road, New Delhi. Feeling aggrieved, the appellant preferred appeal, which was dismissed by the impugned judgment and decree by Additional District Judge holding that the service of notice under Section 195 was mandatory and that too within six months of the raising of unauthorised construction ; service of such notice was denied by the plaintiff, therefore, the onus to prove service squarely lay on the N. D. M. C. so as to non-suit the plaintiff. Such service was not proved. In view of the categorical denial by the plaintiff that action of N. D. M. C. without serving any notice was illegal and unauthorised. As such it was all the more necessary for N. D. M. C. to have proved on record that noticed was served on the appellant. It was held that in the absence of compliance of the provisions of Section 195 of the Punjab Municipal Act, 1911 the suit was not barred under Section 225 of the Act. Against this judgment and decree, N. D. M. C. has preferred this appeal urging that the suit filed by the respondent was not maintainable because of statutory bar under Section 225 of the Punjab Municipal Act, 1911. While admitting the appeal on 25. 1. 1984 no substantial question of law was formulated.

( 5 ) I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and been taken through the rec