JUDGMENT

Mr. Harkesh Manuja, J. (Oral)

By way of present appeal, challenge has been laid to the judgment and decree dated 09.05.1992 passed by the Court of Additional District Judge, Hisar, whereby, the judgment and decree dated 12.08.1988 passed by the trial Court, dismissing the suit for permanent injunction filed at the instance of respondent/plaintiff was reversed.

2. Briefly stating, respondent/plaintiff by way of filing a suit for permanent injunction assailed the notice dated 12.06.1982 & 19.08.1982 issued by the appellant-defendant in exercise of its power under Section 235 /237 of HARYANA MUNICIPAL ACT , 1973 (hereinafter referred to as "1973 Act"). In the present case, the case set up by the respondent/plaintiff was that notices issued to him alleging illegal construction were vague as the same did not provide any description of the shop or the construction and in that light it was contended by him that the shop in question was existing over the property owned and possessed by him since the year 1976 and the same was not a new construction.

3. On the contrary, the stand taken by the appellant municipal committee was that the shop was newly constructed, without obtaining permission under the provisions of the 1973 Act and thus, the notice dated 19.08.1982 for its removal was rightly served upon the respondent/plaintiff.

4. The trial Court vide its judgment and decree dated 12.08.1988 dismissed the suit for permanent injunction filed at the instance of respondent/plaintiff. Aggrieved thereof, an appeal was filed which came up for adjudication before the First Appellate Court on 09.05.1992 and the same was allowed wherein, though the notice dated 19.08.1982 issued by the appellant/defendant was struck down being vague, however, the liberty was granted to issue fresh notice upon the respondent/plaintiff.

5. Instead of issuing fresh notice to the respondent-plaintiff, the appellant-defendant chose to file the present appeal by assailing the judgment and decree dated 09.05.1992, passed by the First Appellate Court. At the time of hearing when the matter was taken up, no one appeared on behalf of the appellant and Mr. Pritam Singh Saini, Advocate, who was present in Court was requested to assist in the matter on having supplied a copy of paper book pertaining to the present appeal.

6. Impugning the aforesaid judgment and decree passed by the First Appellate Court, learned counsel for the appellant submits that the construction raised at the instance of respondent/plaintiff was without obtaining permission under the provisions of 1973 Act and thus, the notices were rightly issued in exercise of powers under Sections 208 /235/237 thereof and the same thus could not have been declared illegal being vague only on account of immaterial details as respondent duly replied to the notices and denied any illegal construction.

7. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and have gone through the paper book. I am unable to find substance in the submissions made on behalf of appellant.

8. This is an admitted fact by the appellant that notice issued under Section 208 of M.C. Act, only mentions with regard to the construction but neither it mentions the date or the authority under which it was issued nor it mentions even about the description of the property where exactly it was located, which apparently made the same vague as rightly held by the appellate Court. Stand taken by the appellant that this notice could not be considered vague as this was subsequently replied by the respondent-plaintiff and he denied the illegal construction does not hold any substance. Mere denial by the respondent cannot bind him with any liab