The Collector had the power to suspend the sanction under Section 285 of the Act and the plaintiff should have impleaded the Collector as a party to the suit.

N. M. KASLIWAL, J.

( 1 ) THIS Civil Second Appeal by the Municipal Council, Aimer is directed against the judgment and decree of the learned Civil Judge, Aimer, dated February 11, 1971 confirming the judgment and decree passed by the Munsif Magistrate, Aimer City (East), Ajmer in Civil Suit No. 80/66.

( 2 ) THE facts of the case in narrow-compass are that the plaintiff-respondent brought a suit for perpetual injunction against the Municipal Council, Ajmer on the allegations that the plaintiff, with a view to put up constructions on the site at Daulat Bagh given in the plan attached with the plaint, applied to the Municipal Council, Aimer on 1-9-1965 for granting sanction of the constructions mentioned in the aforesaid plan. The said plan with the modification mentioned in the letter, by the defendant-council dated 8-10-1965 was sanctioned and the same was duly conveyed to the plaintiff with the corrected sanctioned plan by the aforesaid letter dated 8-10-1965. The defendant subsequently, by its letter dated 6-11-65, which was delivered to the plaintiff on 17-2-66 conveyed to the plaintiff not to start constructions till further orders from the defendant. According to the plaintiff, the defendant had no legal right to ask the plaintiff not to start constructions or to alter, modify or cancel a sanction once granted. The plaintiff after the receipt of the sanction had every right to construct the building according to the sanctioned plan and the defendant had no right to suspend its resolution and as such the action of the defendant was illegal and without jurisdiction. The plaintiff apprehended that the defendant might interfere with the putting up of the constructions by the plaintiff, as also, of the taking of steps, to remove the constructions, which might be put up by the plaintiff. In these circumstances the plaintiff prayed to issue a permanent injunction in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant, directing the defendants, its agents, officers, workmen, servants etc. , not to interfere with the putting up of the plaintiffs constructions or starting of the constructions by the plaintiff in accordance with the sanctioned plan,

( 3 ) THE Municipal Council filed a written statement and took the plea that the sanction was subject to certain conditions contained in the letter dated Oct. 8, 1965, the sanction was given by the Building Works Committee by its resolution dated 8-10-1965. It was stated in the additional pleas that after the sanction was communicated to the plaintiff, the improvement trust sent a letter dated 11-10-1965 to suspend the sanction. Thereupon, a letter No. CPO-711 dated 11-10-1965 was sent to the plaintiff by registered A. D. post asking him not to proceed with the constructions till he heard from the defendant. A telegram to the same effect was sent on 13-10-1965 but it was returned on 14-10-1965 undelivered with the remarks that the plaintiff was out of station. Consequently, a copy of letter No. CPO-711 dated 11-10-1965 was affixed on plaintiffs residence in presence of two witnesses. It was further pleaded that the Collector, Aimer suspended the execution of resolution dated 8-10-1965. The defendant communicated the said order of the Collector to the plaintiff on 6-111965 and asked him not to start the constructions till further orders. The defendant had a right to modify or cancel the resolution of the Building Works Committee. It was also pleaded that the order of the Collector was binding on the plaintiff as well as the defendant. The said order of the Collector was under scrutiny of the State Government, which had the power to rescind or confirm the order. The order of the Collector could not be challenged in Civil Court. On the basis of the aforesaid pleadings of the parties, the trial court framed the following issues:-

(1) Whether the directions of the defendant contained in its letter dated 6-11-1965 requiring the plaintiff not to start the constructions till further order