( 1 ) THIS appeal is directed against the order dated 20th November, 1998 rejecting the plaint under Order 7 Rule 11 (d) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short, the Code) holding that the suit is barred under Section 347-E of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act (for short, the Act) and that equitable relief for injunction cannot be granted when an equally efficacious relief is available to the appellant.

( 2 ) BRIEF facts of the case are that on 4th August, 1987 appellants/plaintiffs filed a suit for permanent injunction restraining respondent/defendant from demolishing and/or sealing the whole or any portion of the property bearing Nos. 1142-1145, Gali No. 9 and 10, Abdul Rehman, Karol Bagh, New Delhi on the ground that officers of the respondent/defendant threatened to demolish and/or seal the portion of the building in violation of the principles of natural justice inasmuch as no pre-decisional notice was served on appellants. The respondent contested the suit pleading therein that after getting the plan sanctioned, appellants constructed the building beyond the sanctioned plan and the deviations were compounded under the Building Bye-laws on payment of requisite compounding fee. Thereafter in violation of the Building Bye-laws appellants raised further unauthorised construction of making excess coverage at the basement, ground floor, mezzanine floor and after it was noticed, a show cause notice no. 86387 dated 21st July, 1987 was issued to appellants and served on their attorney Mr. Ved Prakash on 24th July, 1987. Even after the service of the notice further unauthorised construction was carried out; and appellants made 100% coverage of the basement, ground floor, mezzanine floor and 75% at the first floor and the basement floor. Consequently a demolition order was issued on 3rd August, 1987 and served upon the owner/builder on the same day by way of pasting at the site in the presence of Notary Public. It was further pleaded that no appeal against the said order under Section 343 of the Act was filed and that the suit is not maintainable as alternative remedy for appeal is provided under the law and no appeal has been filed.

( 3 ) ON the basis of the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed:-

"1. Whether the suit is maintainable and whether the plaint is liable to be rejected as the plaintiffs are provided with an adequate and equally efficacious alternative remedy under the provisions of Section 343 and 347 of the DMC Act? OPP

2. Whether the plaintiffs have been served notice under the provisions of the DMC Act in accordance with law? OPP

3. Whether the plaintiffs have made any unauthorised construction in the suit property after issuance of the completion certificate? If so, to what effect?4. Relief.

( 4 ) ISSUE No. 1 was taken as a preliminary issue. After hearing arguments, the learned trial court rejected the plaint under Order 7 Rule 11 (d) of the Code observing that the appellants may pursue the remedy before the Appellate Tribunal, under the Act, if so advised.

( 5 ) WE have heard Mr. A. S. Chandhok, learned counsel for the appellants and Mr. Raman Duggal, learned counsel for the respondent and have been taken through the record.

( 6 ) MR. A. S. Chandhok, learned counsel for the appellants argued that the plaint could not be rejected under Order 7 Rule 11 (d) of the Code without recording any finding on issues 2 and 3 to the effect as to whether appellants were served with any notice under the provisions of the Act and whether there was any unauthorised construction after issuance of the completion certificate. He argued that the statutory authorities acted contrary to the provisions of the statute and in violation of the basic procedural requirements. He REFERRED TO to paragraph 16 of the plaint which reads as under:- "16 Assuming though not admitting that there has been any new and/or unauthorised construction made, it is submitted that without issuing any show cause notice