Holding

The Delhi Municipal Corporation Act bars civil suits against demolition orders, which are maintainable only on a prima facie finding of jurisdictional error, and ex parte injunctions must comply with the procedural requirements of Order 39 Rule 3 (proviso).

Summary

The Supreme Court examined whether the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957 bars civil courts from entertaining suits challenging demolition orders of unauthorised constructions. It held that the Act creates a statutory scheme that ousts court jurisdiction, and suits are maintainable only if there is a prima facie jurisdictional error in the Commissioner’s order. The Court also clarified that temporary injunctions under Order 39 Rule 3 of the CPC may be granted ex parte only in urgent cases, provided reasons are recorded and the order is limited to two weeks pending service of notice. Accordingly, the appeals were allowed, directing that aggrieved parties must first approach the Appellate Tribunal and, where appropriate, follow the prescribed procedure for interim injunctions. The judgment emphasized the need to protect common‑law rights while respecting the statutory remedial machinery.

Issues considered

Whether Section 343 and Section 347E of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957 expressly oust the jurisdiction of civil courts to entertain suits against demolition orders.
Whether a suit can be entertained when there is a jurisdictional error in the statutory authority's order.
Whether the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act creates a new right or merely regulates the pre‑existing common‑law right to erect buildings.
Whether an ex parte temporary injunction can be granted without notice under Order 39 Rule 3 (proviso) of the CPC and what procedural safeguards are required.

Legislation cited

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908s. 9
Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957s. 343, s. 347, s. 347E
Delhi Municipal Corporation (Amendment) Act, 1984
Order 39 Rule 3 (Proviso) of the CPC

Subjects

jurisdictionouster clauseDelhi Municipal Corporation Actdemolition orderstemporary injunctionOrder 39 Rule 3Civil Procedurepublic interest litigationappellate tribunaljurisdictional error

Judgment

A SHIV KUMAR CHADHA ETC. ETC.

v.

MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI AND ORS.

MAY 4, 1993
B
[M.N. VENKA TACHALIAH, CJ., P.B. SA WANT AND N.P. SINGH, JJ.]

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908:

Section 9-Civil Court's jurisdiction- Ouster when.

De//Ji Municipal Corporation Act, 195:
c
Sections 343,347£- Suits in connection with orders passed or proceedings
initiated for demolitio_n of constructions-Maintainability of-Directions of Su-
preme Court.

Co~e of Civil Procedure, 1908:
D
Order 39, Rule 3, proviso -Temporary injunction-Granting
of-When-Court's duty-Reasons for grant of injunction-Mandatory to
r.et'ord-Supreme Court's dirt:ctions.

, ln· respect of some private dispute between two neighbours a writ
application was filed in the High Court. On the material produced in the case
E ..it was treated as a Public Interest Litigation and the High Court was to find
out a solution in respect of unauthorised constructions alleged to have been
made by different owners/occupiers/builders without sanctioned plans or by
making deviations from the sanctioned plans. The High Court wanted to
ensure that such unauthorised constructions were not perpetuated on the
F basis of interim orders of injunction passed by the Civil Courts.

The High Court disposed of the petition holding that the owners/
occupiers/builders were to be given liberty to file fresh building plans and that
the Municipal Corporation was to examine such building plans in accordance
with law and that the Corporation was to seal and to demolish those
G constructions which were beyond the compoundable limits. The High Court
also directed that no civil suit would be entertained by any Court in Delhi in
respect of any action taken or proposed to be taken by the Co_rporation with
regard to the sealing and/or demolition of any building or any part thereof.
The High Court directed tUrther that person aggrieved by an order of sealing
or demolition had the right to file an.a_ppeal to ~he Appellate Tribunal under
H the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957.
522
SHIV KUMAR v. M.C.D. 523

Against the High Court's order. 'he present appeals were fded by special A
leave.

On the question, "whether the jurisdiction of the Court has been
statutorily barred in respect of suits in connection with the orders passed or
proceedings initiated for demolition of constructions, which have been made
without sanction or by deviating from the sanctioned plans", allowing the
B
appeals, this Court,

HELD: 1.1. With the increase in the number of taxing statutes, welfare
legislations and enactments to protect a class of citizens, a trend can be noticed
that most of such legislations confer decision making powers on various C
authorities and they seek to limit or exclude Court's power to review those
decisions. T.he result is that the power of the Court under section 9 of the Code
is being denuded and curtailed by such special enactments, in respect of
liabilities created or rights conferred. The ouster of the jurisdiction of the
Court is upheld on the finding that the rights or liabilities in question had been
created by th•i! Act in question and remedy provided therein was adequate. D
(S3S-D·F)

1.2. The situation will be different w~ere a statute purports to curb and
curtail a pre-existing common law right and purports to oust the jurisdiction
of the Court so far remedy against the orders passed under such statute are E
concerned. In such cases, the courts have to be more vigilant, while examining
the question as to whether an adequate redressal machinery has been
provided, before which the person aggrieved may agitate his grievance.
(53S·G)

1.3. In spite ofthe bar placed on the power of the Court, orders passed F
under such statutes can be examined on "jurisdictional question". A suit will
be_ rqaintainable. (536-F)

Karikara Chintamani Dora v. Guatreddi Annamanaidu, AIR 1974 SC
1069; Desika Charyulu v. State of Andhra Pradesh, -AIR 1964 SC 807; PYX
Granite Co. Led. v. Minislry of Housing and weal and Government, 1960 A.C. G
260 and Anisminic Ltd. v. Foreign Compensation Commission, 19692AC147,
relied on.

Wolverhampton New Waterworks Co. v. Hawkesford, [1859] 6
H
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1993) 3 S.C.R.
524

A C.B. (N.S.) 336; Neville v. London "Express" Newspaper limited. [1919)
Appeal Cases 368; Baraclough v. Brown, [1897) Appeal Cases 615; Secretary
of State v. Mask & Co., AIR 1940 P.C. 105; Finn Seth Radha Kishan v.
Administrator. Municipal committee, Ludhiana, AIR 19~3 SC 1547; Firm of
Illuri Subbayya Cherry and Sons v. State ofAndhra Pradesh, AIR 1964 SC 322;
B Mis. Kamala Mills Ltd. v. State ofBombay, AIR 1965SC1942; Ram Swa!UP and
Ors. v. Shikar Chand. AIR 1966 SC 893; State of Kera la v. Mis. -N. Rama swami
Iyer and sons, AIR 1966 SC 1738; Ram Gopal Reddy v. Additional Custodian
Evacuee Property, Hyderabad, (1966) 3 SCR 214; Custodian of Evacuee Prop-
erty, Punjab & Ors. v. lafran Begum, [1967) 3 SCR 736; D/111/abhai v. State of
Madhya Pradesh, AIR 1969 SC 78; The Premier Automobiles Ltd. v. Kamlaker
C Shanrann Wadke, AIR 1975 SC 2238=(1976) 1SCC496; Bara Shoe Co. Ltd. v.
Jabalpur Corporation, AIR 1977 SC 955= (1977) 2 SCC 472; Munshi Ram v.
Municipal Commiuee, Chheharta, AIR 1979 SC 1250= [1979] 3 SCC 83; Ram
Singh v. Gram Panchayar, Mehal Kalan, AIR 1986 SC 2197=[1986] 4 SCC 364;
Raja Ram Kumar Bhargava v. Union of India, AIR 1988 SC 752= [1988] SCC
D 681 and Sushi/ Kumar Mehta v. GobindRamBohra, [1990] 1SCC193, referred
to.

1.4. The Delhi Municipal Corporation Act purports to regulate the
common law right of the citizens to erector construct buildings of their choice.
E This right existed since time immemorial. But with the urbanisation and
development of the concep& of planned city, regulations, restrictions, on such
common law right have been imposed. But as the provisions of the Act intend
to regulate and restri~t a common law right,
.
and not any right or liability
.
created under the Act itself, it cannot be said that the right and the remedy
F have been given uno flatu e.g. "in the same breath". (537-E)

1.5. In spite of the bar prescribed under sub-sections (4) and (5) of
section 343 and section 347E of the Corporation Act over the power of the
Courts, under certain special circumstances, the Court can examine, whether
the dispute falls within the ambit of the Act. But once the Court is satisfied that
G eith~"1he provisions of the Act are not applicable_ to the building in question
or the basic procedural requirements which are vital in nature, have not been
,.
followed, it shall have jurisdiction, to enquire and investigate while protecting
the common law rights of the citizens. (537-G)

H 1.6. The regulations and bye-laws in respect of buildings, are meant to
SHIV KUMAR"· M.C.D. 525

- serve the public interest. But at the same time it cannot be held that in all
circumstances, the authorities entrusted with the demolition of unauthorised
constructions, have exclusive power, to the absolute exclusion of the power of
the Court. In some special cases where "jurisdictional error" on the part of
A

the Corporation is established, a suit shall be maintainable. (538-C)

I. 7. The Court should not ordinarily entertain a suit in connection with
B
the proceedings initiated for demolition by the Commissioner, in terms of
section 343 (1) of the Corporation Act. The Court should direct the persons
aggrieved to pursue the· remedy before the Appellate Tribunal and then
before the Administrator in accordance with the provisions of the said Act.
(538-D) C

1.8. The Court should entertain a suit questioning the validity of an
order passed under section 343 of the Act, only if the Court is of prima facie
opinion that the order is nullity in the eyes of law because of any "jurisdic-
tional error" in exercise of the power by the Commissioner or that the order
is outside the Act. (538-E) D

2.1. A party is not entitled to an order of injunction as a matter of right
or course. Grant of injunction is within the discretion of the Court and such
discretion is to be exercised in favour of the plaintiff only ifit is proved to the
satisfaction of the Court that unless the defendant is restrained by an order
E
of injunction, an irreparable loss or damage will be caused to the plaintiff
during the pendency of the suit. (538-H)

2.2. The purpose of temporary injunction is;to maintain the status quo.
The Court grant<> such relief according to the legal principles- ex debite
justitiae. Before any such order is passed the Court must be satisfied that a F
strong prima facie case has been made out by the plaintiff including on the

-- question of maintainability of the suit and the balance of convenience is in his
favour and refusal ofinjunction would cause irreparable injury to him. (539-
B)

2.3. The Court should be always willing to ext~nd its hand to protect a G
citizen who is being wronged or is being deprived of a property without any
authority in law or without following the procedure which are fundamental

--
and \'ital in nature. Hut at the same time the judicial proceedings cannot be
used to protect or to perpetuate a wrong committed by a person who
appr11achcs the Court. (539-D)
H
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1993] 3 S.C.R.
526

A 2.4. Power to grant injunction is an extra-ordinary power vested in the
Court to be exercised taking into consideration the facts and circtimstailces
of a particular case. The Courts have to be more cautious when the said power
is being exercised without notice or hearing the party who is to be affected by
the order so passed. (539-E)

B 2.5. In spite of the statutory requirement, in order 39, Rule 3 the Courts
have been passing orders of injunction before issuance of notices or hearing
the parties against whom such orders are to operate without recording the
reasons for passing such orders. It is said that if the reasons for grant of
injunction are mentioned, a grievance can be made by the other side that
Court has prejudged the issues involved in the suiL This is a misconception
c about the nature and the scope of interim orders. Any opinion expressed in
connection with an interlocutory application has no bearing and shall not
affect any party, at the stage of the final adjudication. Apart from that now in
view of the proviso to Rule 3 of Order 39, there is no scope for any argumenL
When the statute itself requires reasons to be recorded, the Court cannot
D ignore that requirement by saying that if reasons are recorded, it may amount
to expressing an opinion in favour of the plaintiff before hearing the defen-
dant. (539-H, 540-H)

2.6. Proviso to Rule 3 of Order 39 of the Code, attracts the principle, that
if a statute requires a thif!gto be done ina particular manner, it should be done
E in that manner or not all.

Taylorv. Taylor, (1875)1 Ch. D. 426; Nazir Ahmed v. Emperor, AIR 1936
PC 253 and Ramilchanllra Keshar Adke v. Govind Joti Chavare, AIR 1975 SC
· 915, relied on.
F
2.7. Whenever· a Court considers it nec~ry in the facts and circum- _....
stances of a particular case to pass an order of injunction without notice to
other side, it· must record the reasons for doing so and should take into
consideration, while passing an order of injunction, all relevant factors,
G including as to how the object of granting injunction itself shall be defeated if
an ex party order is not passed. But any such ex party order should be in force.
up to a particular date before which the plaintiff should be required to serve
the notice on the defendant concerned. (541-C)

H Supreme Court Practice 1993, Vol. I, at page 514, referred to.
SHIV KUMAR v. M.C.D. [N.P. SINGH J.] 527

2.8. The Court should first direct the plaintiff to serve a copy of the A
application with a copy of the plaint along with relevant documents on the
counsel for the Corporation or any competent authority of the Corporation
and the order should be passed only after hearing the parties. (541-F)

2.9. If the circumstances ofa case so warrant and where the Court is of
the opinion, that the object of granting the injunction would be defeated .by
B
delay, the Court should record reasons for its opinion as required by proviso
to Rule 3 of Order 39 of the Code, before passing an order for injunction. The
Courtmustdirectthatsuch order shall operate only for a period of two weeks,
during which notice along with copy of the application, plaint and relevant
documents should be served on the competent authority or the counsel for the C
Corporation. Affidavit of service of notice should be fded as provided by
proviso to Ruic 3 of Order 39 aforesaid. If the Corporation has entered
appearance, any such ex parte order of injunction should be ·extended only
after hearing the counsel for the Corporation. (541-H, 542-A)

2.10. While passing an ex parte order ofinjunction the Court shall direct D
the plaintiff to give an undertaking that he will not make any further
construction upon the premises till the application for injunction is finally
heard and disposed of. (512-C)

CIVILAPPELLATEJURISDICTION: Civil Appeal Nos. 2531-33of1993.
E
From the Judgment and Order dated 19.2.1991 of the Delhi High Court in
C.W.P. No. 3499 of 1989.

'\ R.M. Bagai, V. Shekhar, Ms. Bina Gupta and Ms. Monika Mohil for the
1 Appellants. F

Kapil Sibal, Ranjit Kumar and R.P. Sharma for the Respondents.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
G
N.P. SINGH. J. Special.leave granted.

These appeals have been filed against an order passed by the Delhi High
Court directing the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (hereinafter referred to as "the
Cof\)Jrn.tion") to issue appropriate notices to the owners/occupiers/builders of the
building where illegal constructions have been made. A liberty has been given to H
SUPREME COURT REPORTS. (1993] 3 S.C.R.
-52g

A the owners/occupiers/builders to file fresh buildings plans with the Corporation in
conformity with the existing bye-laws. The building plans as filed are to be
examined in accordance with the law. The Corporation has been directed that if it
finds that the constructions are beyond the compoundable limits, then to seal the
same and to demolish thereafter.

B The appellants have no grievance so far as the aforesaid part of the order is
concerned. They have sought interference of this Court with the other part of the --'• '
order, where it has been said that "no civil suit will be entertained by any court in
Delhi in respect ofany action taken or proposed to be taken by the Corporation with
regard to the sealing and/or demolition of any building or any part thereof. Any
C person aggrieved by an order of sealing or demolition which is passed shall,
however, have the right of filing an appeal to the Appellate Tribunal under the
Municipal Act. The Appellate Tribunal is the only forum which has the jurisdiction
to grant interim relief." The other part of the order in respect of which objection
·.
.has been taken is where the Court has directed the Corporation to approach those
courts which have already issued injunction "for variation and vacation of the
D injunction orders in the light of' the said order.

Initially a writ application was filed in respect of some private dispute
between two neighbours. In due course on the material produced by one party or
the other it was treated as a Public Interest Litigation and by the impugned order
the High Court has purported to find out a solution in respect of unauthorised
E constructions alleged to have been made by different owners/ occupiers/builders
in the different parts of the city without sanctioned plans or by making deviations
from the plans which had been sanctioned. The Court has al$O purported to ensure
that such unauthorised constructions are not perpetuated on the basis of interim
orders of injunction passed by Civil Courts.
F
It cannot be disputed that by the impugned order the jurisdiction of any Court
in Delhi to entertain any suit in connection with demolition of any part of any
building which, acc?rding to the Corporation, is unauthorised and illegal has been
ousted.

G The Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as "the
·Corporation Act") has made provisions for the constitution of the Corporation and
has prescribed the procedure for election of the councillors, levy of taxes,
sanitation and public health. Chapter XVI contains provisions regarding erection
of buildings within the Corporation area, Section 331 defines the expression "to
erect a building". Section 332 says that "no person shall erect or commence to erect
H
SHIV KUMAR 1·. M.C.D. [N.P. SINGH J.) 529.

any building or execute any of the works specified in section 334 except with the A
previous sanction of the Conunissioner". The relevant part of section 343 is as
follows:-

"343. Order of demolition and stoppage of buildings and works in
certain cases and appeal.
B

-
- ( 1) ...................................

(2) Any person aggrieved by an order of the Conunissioner
made under sub-section ( 1) may prefer an appeal against the order
~ to the Appellate Tribunal within the period specified in the order for c
the demolition of the erection or work to which it relates.

, (3) Where an appeal is preferred under sub-section (2) against
an order of demolition, the Appellate Tribunal max •. subject of the
provisions of sub-section (3) of section 347 C, sta{~the enforcement
D
of that order on such terms, if any, and for such period, as it may
think fit:
"'
IJ Provided that where the erection of any building or execution
of any work has not been completed at the time of the making of the
order of demolition, no order staying the enforcement of the order E
of demolition shall be made by the Appellate Tribunal unless
security, sufficient in the opinion of the said Tribunal has been given
by the appellant for not proceeding with such erection or work
pending the disposal of the appeal.

(4) No Court shall entertain any suit, application or order F
~ proceeding for injunction or other relief against the Conunissioner
to restrain him from taking any action or making any order in
pursuance of the provisions of this section.

(5) Subject to an order made by the Administrator on appeal G
under section 347 D, every order made by the Appellate Tribunal on
appeal under this section. and subject to the ordei'fof the Adminis-
trator and the Appellate Tribunal on appeal, the order of demolition
made by the Conunissioner shall be final and conclusive".

Section 344 vests power in the Conunissioner to stop the construction of the H
530 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1993) 3 S.C.R.

A building where the erection of such building or execution of any work has been
commenced or is being carried on either without sanction or contrary to sanction
so granted or in contravention of any condition subject to which sanction has been
-
accorded. Under section 345A, the Commissioner at any time, before or after
making an order of demolition under section 343 or of the stoppage of the erection
of any building or execution of any work under section 343, can make an order
B directing the sealing of such erection or work or of the premises in which such
erection or work is being carried or has been completed. A further appeal has been
provided under section 347D to the Administrator against the order of the
Appellate Tribunal. Section 347E says:-
-
c "347E. Bar of jurisdiction of courts.

· ( 1) After the commencement of section 7 of the Delhi Munici-
pal Corporation (Amendment) Act, 1984, no court shall entertain
any suit, application or other proceedings in respect of any order or
notice appealable under section 343 or section 347B and no such
D order· or notice shall be called in question otherwise then by
preferring an appeal under these sections.

(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (l),
every suit, application or other proceeding pending in any court
immediately before tl:\e commencement of section (7) of the Delhi· ·,
E
Municipal Corporation (Amendment) Act, 1984, in respect of any
order or notice appealable under section 343 or section 347B, shall
continue to be dealt with and disposed of by that court as ifthe said
section had not been brought into force."

F Because of sub-sections (4) and (5) of section 343 and section 347E
aforesaid the stand of the Corporation is that the Courts have been debarred from
entertaining suits, applications or proceedings for injunction, against any order or
notice for demolition and the order of demolition passe~ by the Commissioner,
subject to appeals before the Appellate Tribunal and Administrator shall be
deemed to be final and conclusive.
G
In spite of sevetal pronouncements of this Court during the last four decades,
as
the question to whether the jurisdiction of the Court has been statutorily barred
· in respect of suits in connection with the orders passed or proceedings initiated for
demolition of constructions, which have been made without sanction or by
H deviating from the sanctioned plans, has to be answered.
'
SHIV.KUMAR v. M.C.D. [N.P. SINGH J.] 531

Section 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as '\he A
Code") says that Courts shall have jurisdiction-46 try all suits of civil nature "excei;t
suits of which their cognizance is either expressly orimpliedly barred". According
to the Corporation once the jurisdiction of the Court to try a suit in which the
validity of any order passed under the provisions -0f the Corporation Act or the
notice issued thereunder has been specifically barred and an internal remedy has
been provided for redressal of the grievances of the persons concerned, there is no B
scope for Court to entertain a suit.

In the olden days the source of most of the rights and liabilities could be
traced to the common law. Then statutory enactments were few. Even such
_,.. enact~nts only created rights or liabilities but seldom provided forums for C
remedi s. The result was that any person having a grievance that he had been
wrong d <!!'his fight was being affected, could approach the ordinary Civil Court
on the principle of law that where there is a right there is a remedy-ubi jus ibi

... remedium. As no internal remedy had been provided in the different statutes
creating rights or liabilities, the ordinary Civil Courts had to exariiine the
grievances in the light of different statutes. With the concept of the Welfare State, D
it was realised that enactments creating liabilities in respect of payment of taxes
obligations after vesting of estates and conferring rights on a class of citizens,
should be complete codes by themselves. With that object in view, foruins were
created under the Acts themselves wtiere grievances could be entertained on
behalf of the persons aggrieved. Provisions were also made for appeals and
revision to higher authorities: E

Then a question arose as to wher!! a particularActhad created a right or
liability and. had also provided a forum for enforcement of such right or for
protection from enforcemenl of a liability without any authority in law, whether
a citizen could approach a Court. It may be pointed out1hat many statutes tiave F
created certain rights or liabilities and have also provided the remedial measures
in respect thereof. But such statutes have 11ot touched the common law rights of
thecitizen. But there are some s\atutes, which in public interest affect even the
common law rights or liabilities of ~e citizen, which were in the nature of existing
rights. The distinction between the two types of rig!Jts or liabilities is subtle in
nature but at the same time very vital. G

In one of the earliest case of Wolverhampton New Waterworks Co. v.
Hawkesfo~d, (1859) 6 C.B. (N.S.) 336, Willes, J, said:-

"There are three classes of cases in which a liability may be H
1
532 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1993) 3 S.C.R.

A established founded upon a statute. One is, where there was a
liability existing at common law, and that liability is affirmed by a
statute which gives a special and peculiar form of remedy different
from the remedy which existed at common law: there, unless the
statute contains words which expressly or by necessary implication
exclude the common-law remedy, and the party suing has his
B election to pursue either that or the statutory remedy. The second
class of cases is, where the statute gives the right to sue merely, but
provides no particular form of remedy: there, the party can only
proceed by action at common law. But there is a third class, viz.

c
where a liability not existing at common law is created by a statute
which at the same time gives a special and particular remedy for
enforcing it. The present case falls within this latter class, if any
liability at all exists. The remedy provided by the statute must be
-
followed, and it is not competent to the party to pursue the eourse
applicable to cases of the second class."

D The same view was reiterated by the House of Lords in Neville v. London
"Express" Newspaper Limited, ( 1919) Appeal Cases 368. In Barraclough v.
Brown, (1897) AC 615, it was said:-

"I do not think the appellant can claim to recover by virtue of the
statute, and at the same time insist upon doing so by means other
E than those prescribed by the statute which alone confers the right."

It was further pointed out "The right and the remedy are given uno flatu, and
the one cannot be dissociated from the other."

F In the well-known case of Secretary ofState v. Mask & Co., AIR 1940 Privy
Council 105, this question was considered in connection with Sea Customs Act
(1878). It was said:-
--- -

"It is settled law that the exclusion of the jurisdiction of the Civil
Courts is not to be readily inferred, but that such exclusion must
G either be explicilly expressed or clearly implied: It is also well
settled that even if jurisdiction is so excluded, the Civil Courts have
jurisdiction to examine into cases where the provisions of the Act
have not been complied with, or the statutory tribunal has not acted
in confonnity with the fundamental principle of judicial proce-
H dure.. "
SHIV KUMAR v. M.C.D. [N.P. SINGH J.] 533

But having enunciated the general principle in respect of ouster of the jurisdiction A
of the Civil° Court it was said:-

"But, in their Lordships' opinion, neither Sec, 32 nor the principle
involved in the decision in 40 IA 48, affect the validity of an Act of
the Indian Legislature which creates an obligation and provides an
B
exclusive Code for its determination: such an obligation is not
covered by sub s. (2) of Section 32."

In connection with the imposition of Terminal Tax on salt under the Punjab
Municipal Act. In Firm Seth Radha Kishan v. Administrator, Municipal commit-
tee. Ludhiana, AIR 1963 SC 1547, it was said that where a statute created a liability c
and provided a remedy, party aggrieved should pursue the remedy provided under
the Act. A Constitution Bench of this Court in Firm of! lluri Subbayya Chetty and
Sons v. State ofAndhra Pradesh, AIR 1964 SC 322, considered the provisions of
Madras General Sales Tax Act and the exclusion of the jurisdiction of the Civil
Court. It was pointed out that there was an express and unambiguous prohibition
and no suit could be entertained by a Civil Court. In connection with the Bombay D
Sales Tax Act the same view was reiterated by a Constitution Bench of this Court
in Mis. Kamala Mills Ltd. v. State ofBombay, AIR 1965 ~C 1942. In Ram Swarup
and ors. v. Shikar chand, AIR 1966 SC 893, a Constitution Bench examined the
baron the jurisdiction of the Civil Court in connection with the House and Tenants-
U .P. (Temporary) control of Rent and Eviction Act, and came to the conclusion
E
thata special statute had excluded the jurisdiction in clear and unambiguous words
and it had provided an adequate and satisfactory alternative remedy to a party. That
may be aggrieved by the relevant order and as such the jurisdiction of the Civil
Court had been ousted. This very question was examined in State of Kerala v. Ml
s N. Ramaswami I yer and sons, AIR 1966 SC 1738, in connection with the
Travancore-Cochin General Sales Tax Act and it was held that the jurisdiction of F
the Civil Court would be deemed to have been excluded because the legislature
had set up a special tribunal to determine the question relating to rights or liabilities.
which had been created by the statute. Again in connection with the provisions of
the Eva~uec Property Act, in Ram Gopal Reddy v. Additional Custodian Evacuee
Proper(}~ Hyderabad, [1966] 3 SCR 214 and Custodian of Evacuee Property
P11njab & Ors. v. Jafran Begum, [1967] 3 SCR 736, it was held that complete G
machinery for adjudication of all claims had been provided under the Act and there
being a bar on the jurisdiction of any co.urt, the Act over-rides other laws, including
Section 9 of the Code of Ci vii Procedure and there was no scope for the Civil Court
to entertain any suit.

The Constitution Bench in Dh11/abhai v. State ofMadhya Pradesh, AIR 1969 H

\
534 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (199313 s:c.R.

A SC 78, said:-

"Where there is an express bar of the jurisdiction of the court, an
examination of the scheme of the particular Act.to find the adequacy
or the sufficiency of the remedies provided may be relevant but is
not decisive to sustain the jurisdiction of the civil court.
B
Where there is no express exclusion the examination of the rem-
edies and the scheme of the particular Act to find out the intendment
becomes necessary and the result of the inquiry may be decisiv~. In
the latter case it is necessary to see if the statute creates a special
c right or a liability and provides for the determination of the right or
liability and further lays down that all questions about the said right
and liability shall be determined by the tribunals so constituted and
whether remedies normally associated with actions in civil courts
are prescribed by the said statute or not."

D In connection with the Industrial Disputes Act, in The Premier Automobiles
Ltd. v. Kamlakar Shantaram Wadke. AIR 1975'SC 2238 = (1976] 1SCC496, it
was pointed out that "the Civil Court will have no jurisdiction to try and adjudicate
upon an industrial dispute, if it concerned enforcement of certain right or liability
·created only under the Act." The jurisdiction of the Civil Court in connection with
E the levy of octroi duty under the C.P. and Barar Municipalities Act, 1922 was
examined by this Court in Bata Shoe Co. Ltd. v. Jabalpur Corporation, AIR 1977
SC 955 = [ 1977] 2 SCC 472, and held it was barred.

Whether the Court can hear and determine suits-relating to levy of profes-
sional tax under the Punjab Municipal Act, 1971 ~as examined in the case of
F Munshi Ram v. Municipal Committee. Chhehartq, AIR 1979 SC 1250 =[1979] 3
sec 83, and it was held:-
" ... Where a Revenue Statute provides for a person aggrieved by
an assessment thereunder, a particular remedy· to be sought in a
particular forum, in a particul:µ-way, it must be sought in that forum
G and in that manner, and all otherforunl's and modes of seeking it are
excludes."

It was pointed out in Ram Singh v. Gram Panchayat, Mehal Kalan, AIR 1986
=
SC 2197 [1986} 4 SCC 364, that when by a special statute rights have been
, H created and jurisdiction of the Court has been barred then the jurisdiction of the
SHIV KUMAR"· M.C.D. [N.P. SINGH J.] 535

Court to try such suits has been taken away. In the case of Raja Ram Kumar A
Bhargava v. Union of India.AIR 1988 SC 752 = [1988] 1sec681, it was said:-

" ... Wherever a right, not preexisting in common-law is created by
a statute and that statute itself provided a machinery for the
enforcement of the right, both the right and the remedy having been B
created uno jlatu and a finality is intended to the result of the
statutory proceedings, then, even in the absence of an exclusionary
provision the civil courts' jurisdiction is impliedly barred."

t._ The jurisdiction of Civil Court to entertain a suit forejectment was examined
in Sushi/ Kumar Mehta v. Gob ind Ram Bohra, [ 1990] 1 SCC 193, and it was held C
that the Rent Control Act was a complete Code and the jurisdiction to try a case
for ejectment was exclusive under that Act.

With the increase in the number of taxing statutes, welfare legislations and
enactments to protect a class of citizens, a trend can be noticed that most of such
legislations confer decision making powers on various authorities and they seeks D
to limit or exclude Court's power to review those deci~ions. The result is that t~e
power of the Court under section 9 of the Code is being denuded and curtailed by
such special enactments, in respect of liabilities created or rights conferred. This
Court in the judgments referred to above has upheld the ouster of the jurisdiction
of the Court on examination of two questions -( 1) Whether the right or liability in
E
respect whereof grievance has been made, had been created under an enactment
and it did not relate to a pre-existing common law right? (2) Whether the machinery
provided for redress al of the grievance in respect of infringement of such right or
imposition of a liability under such enactment, was adequate and complete? The
ouster of the jurisdiction of the Court was upheld on the finding that the rights or
liabilities in question had been created by the Act in question and remedy provided F
therein was adequate.

But the situation will be different where a stamte purports to curb and curtail
a pre-existing common law right and purports to oust the jurisdiction of the Court
so far remedy against the orders passed under such statute are concerned. In such
cases, the courts have to be more vigilant, while examining the question as to G
whether an adequate redressal machinery has been provided, before which the-
person aggrieved may agitate his grievance. In the case of katikara Chintamani
Dora v. Guatreddi Annamanaidu, AIR 1974 SC 1069, this Court after referring to
the case of Desika Cltaryu/u v. State of Andltra Pradesh, AIR 1964 SC 807, , H
observed:-
536 SUPREME COURT REPORTS. (1993) 3 S.C.R.

A "It was pertinently added that this exclusion of the jurisdiction of the
Civil Court would be subject to two limitations. First, the Civil
Courts have jurisdiction to examine into cases where the provisions
of the Act have not been complied with or the statutory tribunal has
not acted in conformity with the fundamental principles of judicial
procedure. The second is as regards the exact extent to which the
B powen; of statutory tribunals are exclusive. The question as to
whether any particular case falls under the first or the second of the
above categories would depend on the purpose of the statute and its
general scheme, taken in conjunction with the scope of the enquiry
entrusted to the tribunal set up and other relevant factors."

c
It was held that a suit for declaration that "the decision of the Settlement
Officerffribunal holding certain properties to be an 'estate' under section 3(2) (d)
of the 1908 Act was void, was maintainable on the ground that the suit property
was not an 'inam village'. In Pyx Granite Co. Ltd. v. Ministry ofHousing and Local
Government, [1960] A.C. 260. the appellants sought· a declaration of their
D common law right to quarry their land without the need to obtain planning
permission under the Town and Country Planning Act, 1947. In that connection
it was said:-

"The appellant company are given no new right of quarrying by the
Act of 1947. Theirright is a common Jaw right and the only question
-
,
E is how far it has been taken away. They do not uno jlaru claim under .. '
the Act and seek a remedy elsewhere. On the contrary, they deny
that they come within its purview and seek a declaration to that
effect."

F In spite of the bar placed on the power of the Court. ()rders passed under such
statutes can be examined on "jurisdictional question". To illustrate; a special
machinery has been provided for removal of the encroachments from 'public land'
under different enactments in different states and the jurisdiction of the Court l:las
been barred in respect of the orders passed by such special tribunals or authorities
constituted under such Acts. Still a suit will be maintainable before a Court on a
G plea that the land in question shall not be deemed to be public land within the
meaning of the definition of 'public land' given in the Act in question, and as such
provisions thereof shall not be applicable.

In the case of Anisminic Ltd. v. Foreign Compensation Commission, (1969)
2 AC 147, a wide interpretation has been given to the word 'jurisdiction' by the
H House of Lords. It was pointed out that in many cases where although the Tribunal
SHIV KUMAR v. M.C.D. [N.P. SINGH J.] 537

has jurisdiction to enter upon an enquiry, it has done or failed to do something in A
the course of such enquiry which is of such .a nature that its decision becomes a
nullity.

By mere reference to different provisions of the Corporation Act it shall
~- appear that the Act does not create any right or liability. Chapter XVI of the Act B
only purports to regulate the erection of the buildings within the Corporation area,
so that erections of the buildings within the Corporation area are systematic,
planned and do not adopt the character of mushroom growth. In view of the
Provisions of the Act, whenever it is discovered that erection of any buiiding or
execution of any work has been commenced or is being carried or has been

- completed, either without sanction or contrary to the sanction or in contravention
of any condition subject to which such sanction had been accorded, the Commis-
sioner can make an order directing that such erection or work shall be demolished.
Any person aggrieved by an order has been given a right to prefer an appeal before
C

the Appellate Tribunal and thereafter to the Administrator. Subject tMiny order
passed by the Appellate Tribunal and the Administrator, the ordftr for demolition
shall be deemed to be final and conclusive. D

According to us, it cannot be urged that the provisions of the Act have created
any right or liability and for enforcement thereof remedy has been provided under
the Act itself. The Act purports to regulate the common law right of the citizens
to erect or construct buildings of their choice. This right existed since time
irrum~morial. But with the urbanisation and development of the concept of planned E
city, regulations, restrictions, on such common law right have been imposed. But
as the provisions of the Act intend to regulate and restrict a common law right, and
not any right liability created under the Act itself, it cannot be said that the right
and the remedy have become given 11no flaw e.g. "in the same breath". Most of the
cases of,this Court referred to above related to statutes creating rights or liabilities F
and providing remedies at the same time. As such the principles enunciated
therein, shall not be fully applicable in the present case. In spite of the bar
prescribed under sub-sections (4) and (5) of section 34J and section 347E of the
Corporation Act over the power of the Courts, under certain special circumstances,
the Court can examine, whether the dispute falls within the ambit of the Act. But
once the Court is satisfied that either the provisions of the Act are not applicable G
to the building in question or the basic procedural requirements which are vital in
nature, have not been followed, it shall have jurisdiction, to enqtilfe and investigate
while protecting the common law rights of tfie citizens. Can a Court hold a suit to
be not maintainable, although along with the plaint materials are produced to show
that the building· in question is not within the Corporation limits, or that .the
constructions were made prior to coming into force of the relevant provisions of H
538 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1993) 3 S.C.R.

A the Act? We are conscious of the fact that persons who make unauthorised
constructions by 'contravening and violating the building bye-laws or regulations
often run to Courts. with pleas mentioned above, specially that no notice was
issued or served on them, before the Corporation has ordered the demolition of the
construction.

B It is well-known that in most of the cities building regulations and bye-laws
have been framed, still it has been discovered that constructions have been made
without any sanction or in contravention of the sanctioned plan, and -such
constructions have continued without any intervention. There cannot be two
opinions that the regulations and bye-laws in respect of buildings, are meant to
C serve the public interest. But at the same time it cannot be held that in all
circumstances, the authorities entrusted with the demolition of unauthorised
constructions, have exclusive power, to the absolute exclusion of the power of the
Court. In some special cases where "jurisdictional error" on the part of the
Corporation is established, a suit shall be maintainable. According to us,

D (1) The Court should not ordinarily entertain a suit in connection
with the proceedings initiated for demolition, by the Commissioner,
in terms of section 343 ( l) of the Corporation Act. The Court should
direct the persons aggrieved to pursue the remedy before the
Appellate Tribunal and then before the Administrator in accordance
with the provisions of the said Act.
E
(2) The Court should entertain a suit questioning the validity of an
order passed under section 343 of the Act. only if the Court is of
Prima facie opinion that the order is nullity in the eyes of law
because of any "jurisdictional error" in exercise of the power by the
F commissioner or that the order is outside the Act.

TEMPORARY INJUNCTION

It need not be said that primary object of filing a suit challenging the validity
of the order of demolition is to restrain such demolition with the intervention of the
G Court. In such a suit the plaintiff is more interested in getting an order of interim
injunction. It has been pointed out repeatedly that a party is not entitled to an order
of injunction as a matter of right or course: Grant of injunction is within the
discretion of the Court and such discretion is to be exercised in favour of the
plaintiff only if it is proved to the satisfaction of the Court that unless the defendant
H is restrained by an order gf injunction, an irreparable loss or damage will be caused
SHIV KUMAR v. M.C.D. [N.P. SINGH J.] 539

- to the plaintiff during the pendency of the suit. The purpose of temporary A
injunction is, thus, to maintain the status qifO. The Court grants such relief
according to the legal principles--ex debite justitiae. Before any such order is
passed the Court must be satisfied that a strong prima facie case has been made
out by the plaintiff including on the question of maintainability of the suit and the
balance of convenience is in bis favour and refusal of injunction would cause

-- irreparable injury to him.

Under the changed circumstance with so many cases pending in Courts, once
an interim order of injunction is passed, in many cases, such interim orders
B

continue for months; if not for years. At final hearing while vacating such interim
orders of injunction in many cases, it has been discovered that. while protecting the C
plaintiffs from suffering the alleged injury, more serious injury has been caused
to the defendants due to continuance of interim orders of injunction without final
hearing. It.is crmatter of common knowledge that on many occasions even public
interest also suffers in view of such interim orders of injunction, because persons
in whose favour such orders are passed are interested in perpetuating the contra-
ventions madt.> by them by delaying the final disposal of such applications. The D
court should 'Je always willing to extent its hand to protect acitizen who is being .
wronged or is being deprived of a property without any authority in law or without
following the procedure which are fundamental and vital in nature. But at the same
time the judicial proceedings cannot _be. used to protect or to perpetuate a wrong ·
committed by a person who approaches the Court.
E
Power to grant injunction is an extraordinary power vested in the Court to be
exercised taking into consideration the facts and circulllS(ances of a particular
case. The Courts have to be more cautious when the said power is being exercised
without notice or hearing the party who is to be affected by the order so passed.
That is why Rule 3 o!.Order 39 of the Code requires that in3ll cases the Court shall, F ·
before grant of an· injunction, direct notice of the appifcation to be given to the
opposite party, except where it appears that object of granting injunction itself
would be defeated by delay. By the Civil Procedure Code (Amendment) Act,
1976, a proviso has been added to the said rule saying that "where it is proposed
to grant an injunction without giving notice of the application to the opposite party,
the Court shall record iile reasons for its opinion that the object of granting the G
injunction would be defeated by delay ....

It has come to our notice that in spite of thefiloresaid statutory requirement,
the Courts have been passing orders of injunction before issuance of notices or
hearing the parties against whom such orders are to operate without recording the
reasons for passing such orders. It is said that if the reasons for grant of injunction H
540 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1993) 3 S.C.R.

A are mentioned, a grievance can be made by the other side that Coun has prejudged
the issues involved in the suit. According to us, this is a misconception about the
nature and the scope of interim orders. It need not be pointed out that any opinion
expressed in connection with an iriterlocutory application has no bearing and shall
not affect any pany, at the stage of the final adjudication. Apan from that now in
view of the proviso to Rule 3 aforesaid, there is no scope for any argument. When
B the statute itself requires reasons to be recorded, the Coun cannot ignore that
requirement by saying that if reasons are recorded, it may amount to expressing
an opinion in favour of the plaintiff before hearing the defendant.

The imperative nature oi the proviso has to be judged in the context of Rule
C 3 of Order ~9 of the Code. Before the Proviso aforesaid was introduced, Rule 3 said
"the Coun shall in all cases, except where it appears that the object of granting the
injunction would be defeated by the delay, before granting an injunction, direct
notice of the application for the same to be given to the opposite party'... The
proviso was introduced to provide a condition, where Coun proposes to grant an
injunction without giving notice of the application to the opposite pany, being of
D the opinion that the object of granting injunction itself shall be defeated by delay.
The condition so introduced is that the Coun "shall record the reasons" why an ex
pane order of injunction was being passed in the facts and circumstances of a
panicular case. In this background, the requirement for recording the reasons for
grant of ex parte injunction, cannot be held to be a mere formality. This
requirement is consistent with the principle, that a pany to a suit, who is being
E restrained from exercising a right which such pany claims to exercise either under
a statute or under the common law, must be informed why instead of following the
requirement of Rule 3, the procedure prescribed under the proviso has been
followed. The party who invokes the jurisdiction of the Coun for grant of an order ·
of restraint against a pany, without affording an opponunity to him of being heard, /

F must satisfy the Coun about the gravity of the sitµation and Coun has to consider
briefly these factors in the ex pa rte order. We are quite conscious of the fact that
·there are other statutes which contain similar provisions requiring the Coun or the
authority concerned to record reasons before exercising power vested in them. In
respect of some of such provisions it has been held that they are required to be
complied with but non-compliance thereof will not vitiate the order so passed. But
G same cannot be said in respect of the proviso to Rule 3 of Order 39. The Parliament
has prescribed a panicular procedure for passing of an order of injunction without
notice to the other side, under exceptional circumstances. Such ex pane orders
have far reaching effect, as such a conditions has been imposed that Coun must
record reasons before passing such order. If it is held that the compliance of the
proviso aforesaid is optional and not obligatory, then the introduction of the
H proviso by the ParHament shall be a futile exercise and that pan of Rule 3 will be
SHIV KUMAR v. M.C.D. [N.P. SINGH J.] 541

a surplusage for all practical purpose. Proviso to Rule 3 of Order 39 of the Code, A
attracts the principle, that if a statute requires a thing to be done in a particular
manner, it should be done in that manner or not all. This principle was approved
and accepted in well-known cases of Taylorv. Taylor. (1875) l Ch. D. 426, Nazir
Ahmed v. Emperor, AIR 1936 PC 253. This Court has also expressed the same
view in respect of procedural requirement of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricul-
tural Lands Act in the case of Ramachandra Keshav Adke v. Gov ind Jo ti Chavare, B
AIR 1975 SC 915.

As such whenever a Court considers it necessary in the facts and circum-
stances of a particular case to pass an order of injunction without notice to other
side. It must record the reasons for doing so and should take into consideration, C
while passing an order of injunction, all relevant factors, including as to how the
object of granting injunction itself shall be defeated if an ex parte order is not
passed. But any such ex pane order should be in force up to a particular date before
which the plaintiff should be required to serve the notice on the ·defendant
concerned. In the Supreme Court Practice 1993, Vol. l, at page5 l4, reference has
been made to the views of the English Courts saying:- D

"Ex pa rte injunctioos are for cases of real urgency where there
has been a true impossibility of giving notice of motion ....

An ex parte injunction should generally be until a certain day, E
usually the next motion day .... "

Accordingly we direct that the application for interim injunction should be
considered and disposed of in the following manner:-

(i) The Court should first direct the plaintiff to serve a copy of the F
application with a copy of the plaint along with relevant documents
on the counsel for the Corporation or any competent authority of the
Corporation and the order should be passed only after hearing the
parties.

G
(ii) If the circumstances of a case so warrant and where the Court
is of the opinion, that the object of granting the injunction would be
defeated by delay, the Court should record reasons for its opinion as
required by proviso to Rule 3 of order 39 of the Code, before passing
an order for injunction. The Court must direct that such order shall
operate only for a period of two weeks, during which notice along H
542 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1993) 3 S.C.R.

A with copy of the application, plaint and relevant documents should
be served on the competent authority or the counsel for the Corpo-
ration. Affidavit of service of notice should be filed as provided by
proviso to Rule 3 of order 39 aforesaid.- If the Corporation has
entered appearance, any such ex parte orderofinjunction should be
extended only after hearing the counsel for the Corporation.
B
(iii) While passing an ex parte order of injunction the Court shall
direct the plaintiff to giv~ an undertaking that he will not make any l
further construction upon the premises till the application for
injunction is finally heard and disposed of.
c
In the result, the appeals are allowed to the extent indicatedabove. In the
circumstances of these cases, there shall be no order as to costs.

VPR. Appeals allowed .

..

....