9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Jurisdiction of Civil Courts in matters of unauthorized construction and demolition. 2. Validity and scope of temporary injunctions in such cases. Summary: 1. Jurisdiction of Civil Courts: The appeals challenge the Delhi High Court's order directing the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD) to issue notices for illegal constructions and examine building plans per existing bye-laws. The High Court's order also barred civil suits in Delhi courts regarding actions taken by the MCD for sealing or demolishing unauthorized constructions, directing aggrieved parties to appeal only to the Appellate Tribunal under the Municipal Act. The appellants objected to this ousting of civil court jurisdiction. The Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957, particularly sections 343, 344, 345A, and 347E, outlines the procedures for building erections and the powers of the Commissioner to stop and demolish unauthorized constructions. Section 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure states that civil courts have jurisdiction unless explicitly or impliedly barred. The judgment references several precedents, including the principle that where a statute creates a right or liability and provides a specific remedy, civil court jurisdiction is excluded. The Court concluded that the Act regulates common law rights to erect buildings and does not create new rights or liabilities. Therefore, civil courts can examine cases where jurisdictional errors are alleged, such as whether the building falls within the Corporation's limits or if procedural requirements were not followed. 2. Validity and Scope of Temporary Injunctions: The primary objective of suits challenging demolition orders is to obtain interim injunctions to prevent demolition. The Court emphasized that granting injunctions is discretionary and should be based on a prima facie case, balance of convenience, and potential irreparable injury. The Court criticized the practice of issuing ex parte injunctions without recording reasons, as required by Rule 3 of Order 39 of the Code of Civil Procedure, and directed that reasons must be recorded for such orders, which should be temporary and extendable only after hearing the opposite party. The Court provided guidelines for handling applications for interim injunctions: (i) Serve a copy of the application and relevant documents to the MCD before passing orders. (ii) Record reasons for ex parte injunctions, limiting their operation to two weeks. (iii) Require plaintiffs to undertake not to make further constructions until the application is finally heard. Conclusion: The appeals were allowed to the extent of modifying the High Court's order, emphasizing the need for civil courts to entertain suits only in cases of jurisdictional errors and ensuring proper procedures for granting temporary injunctions. The Court underscored the importance of judicial discretion and adherence to statutory requirements in such matters. Appeals allowed.
|
