The main legal point established in the judgment is that the jurisdiction of the civil court to decide the suit was not barred by the provisions of the U.P. Urban Planning and Development Act, 1973, as the remedies provided under the Act were not adequate to exclude the jurisdiction of the civil court.

( 1 ) THE respondent No. 1 filed the suit against the appellants and respondent No. 2 for injunction to restrain them from demolishing the house in dispute No. 33/2 Stanley Road, Allahabad. It is contended that the respondent No. 1 purchased Plot No. 36 from Hari Mohan Tandon on 3. 12. 1980. He submitted a plan for sanction for construction of the house before the appellant on 14. 9. 1981. It was not sanctioned and, therefore, the respondent No. 1 on 16. 12. 1981, served a notice on the appellant that and, therefore, either the plan be sanctioned or if there is any objection, he may be informed. No reply was given by the appellant. Therefore, on 27. 12. 1981 the respondent No. 1 again served a notice that he is starting the constructions. The constructions were complete regarding which the Information was given and the house was given number 33/2 stanley Road, Allahabad and was also assessed to house tax. However, later on the appellant treated the constructions as illegal and served notice for demolition. The respondent No. 1 was ready to compound the matter but the request for compounding was also rejected, hence the suit was filed. The appellants contested the suit and it is contended that the house has been constructed without sanction of the plan and, therefore, it is liable to be demolished. It was further pleaded that the civil court has no Jurisdiction to try the suit.

( 2 ) THE trial court has held that the appellants have no right to demolish the house and the Court has jurisdiction to try the suit. The suit was decreed by the trial court. The appeal preferred by the appellant was also dismissed. Therefore, the appellant has preferred this second appeal.

( 3 ) THE second appeal was admitted on the following substantial question of law :-Whether the civil court had jurisdiction to entertain the suit in view of the provisions contained in the U. P. Urban Planning and Development Act. 1973?"

( 4 ) I have heard Sri Ashok Mohlley, learned counsel for the appellants and Sri A. S. Diwaker, learned counsel for the respondents No. 1.

( 5 ) THIS appeal was admitted only on one question of law and the parties have confined their arguments to the said question only. It is contended that the suit is not maintainable in view of the provisions of U. P. Urban Planning and Development Act, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the Act ). The perusal of the provision show that Section 15 deals with the application for permission to raise construction and also regarding grant of permission. Section 15a deals with the completion certificate. The material section which has been referred to is Section 27 which provide for the order regarding demolition of building. Clause (2) provide that if the order of demolition of building is passed by the Development Authority, the aggrieved person may appeal to the Chairman. Clause (3) provides that the Chairman can decide the matter. Clause (4)provides that the decision of the Chairman on the appeal and subject to only such decision, the order under Sub-section (1), shall be final and shall not be questioned in any court.

( 6 ) THE other provision referred to is Section 37 of the Act which provides that every decision of the Chairman on appeal, and subject only to any decision on appeal (if it lies and is preferred), the order of the Vice-chairman or other officer under Section 15, or Section 27, shall be final and shall not be questioned in any Court. Sub-clause (4) of Section 41 of the Act further provides that every order of the State Government made in exercise of the powers conferred by this Act shall be final and shall not be called in question in any Court.

( 7 ) ON the basis of these provisions. It has been argued that the provisions of the Act are self-contained and they provide appropriate remedy to the person aggrieved. Therefore, the jurisdiction of the civil court is expressly barred and the Court cannot entertain the suit under section 9. C. P. C. Learned counsel in support