Tankha, J.

1. This revision under section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure has been preferred by the petitioner Laxmi Prasad against the order dated 19-1-1976 passed by the District Judge, Raipur, in Misc. Judicial Case No.2 of 1976.

2. According to the petitioner, he has constructed a house in Raipur city after obtaining requisite sanction from the non-applicant, Municipal Corporation, Raipur. But on 9-1- 1976, the petitioner was served with a notice from the non-applicant for the removal of the construction of some rooms and the balcony, which have been constructed beyond the sanction, further failure to do so, the non-applicant would demolish them. The petitioner moved an application under section 307 (5) of the M. P. Municipal Corporation Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as an Act) for an injunction restraining the non-applicant Municipal Corporation, Raipur, from demolishing them. The lower Court rejected that application as not maintainable. Hence, this revision by the petitioner challenging the said order.

3. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the lower Court wrongly held that a petition could not lie for an injunction by an applicant against Corporation under section 307 (5) of the Act for restraining the Corporation from removing the construction as noticed to him and as such the said Court committed error in the exercise of its jurisdiction. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the Municipal Corporation submitted that section 307 (5) is not available to one who is noticed by the Corporation but only to the Corporation or any other person except the one who is noticed.

4. To resolve the controversy, it would be convenient first to reproduce section 307 of the Act hereunder:-

Section 307. Power to require removal or alteration of work not in conformity with bye-laws or any scheme or any other requirement.(1) If any building erected or re-erected in contravention of any town planning scheme mentioned under section 391 or of any building byelaws made under sections 427 the Commissioner without prejudice to his right to take proceedings for a fine in respect of the contravention may by notice require the owner either to pull down or remove the work or, if he so elects, to effect such alteration therein as may be necessary to make it comply with the said scheme or bye. laws.

(2) If a building is erected or re-erected-

(a) without any sanction as required by section 293 (1), or

(b) when sanction has been refused, or

(c) in contravention of the terms of any sanction granted, or

(d) when sanction has lapsed under section 300,

the Commissioner, unless he deems it necessary to take proceedings in respect of such building or work under section 294, shall-

(1) by written notice, require the person who is erecting such building or executing such work or has erected such building or executed such work on or before such day as shall be specified in such notice, by a statement in writing subscribed by him or by an agent duly authorised by him in that behalf and addressed to the Commissioner, to show sufficient cause why such building or work shall not be removed, altered or pulled down, or

(2) shall require the said person on such day and at such time and place as shall be specified in such notice to attend personally or by an agent duly authorised by him in that behalf and show sufficient cause why such building or work shall not be removed, altered or pulled down.

(3) If such person shall fail to show sufficient cause, to the satisfaction of the Commissioner; why such building or work shall not be removed altered or pulled down, the Commissioner may remove, alter or pull down the building or work and the expenses thereof shall be paid by the person.

(4) If the plans are approved by the Commissioner and the approval is communicated to the person intending to build the house or if the plans are rejected by the Commissioner but no notice of their rejection is given to person intending to build the house within