Civil suits against demolition action face a limited bar, while ex parte injunctions require recorded urgency and strict safeguards.

Civil courts are ordinarily barred from entertaining suits against demolition and sealing actions under municipal building-control provisions, because the statute provides a special appellate remedy; however, the bar is not absolute where the impugned order is prima facie outside the Act, involves jurisdictional error, or breaches mandatory procedural requirements. Ex parte interim injunctions in such disputes are exceptional and must satisfy the settled tests of prima facie case, balance of convenience, and irreparable injury. If granted without notice, the court must record reasons, keep the restraint short-lived, ensure prompt service of the pleadings and supporting material, and obtain an undertaking against further construction.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the civil court's jurisdiction was barred in suits challenging demolition and sealing action under the municipal building-control provisions; (ii) whether ex parte interim injunctions could be granted without recording reasons and without ensuring prompt notice and limited operation.

Issue (i): Whether the civil court's jurisdiction was barred in suits challenging demolition and sealing action under the municipal building-control provisions.

Analysis: The statutory scheme provided a special remedy against orders of demolition and sealing by way of appeal to the Appellate Tribunal and further appeal to the Administrator. The bar on civil court jurisdiction had to be read in the context that the municipal provisions regulated a pre-existing common law right to construct buildings and did not create a new liability in the same sense as fiscal or welfare enactments that form a complete code. Accordingly, while ordinary interference by civil courts was impermissible, judicial scrutiny remained open where the action was shown prima facie to be outside the Act, or where there was a jurisdictional error or breach of fundamental procedural requirements.

Conclusion: The civil court should ordinarily not entertain such suits, but it may do so where the impugned demolition order is prima facie a nullity for jurisdictional error or is otherwise outside the Act; the bar is not absolute.

Issue (ii): Whether ex parte interim injunctions could be granted without recording reasons and without ensuring prompt notice and limited operation.

Analysis: Temporary injunction is discretionary and must be granted only on a strong prima facie case, balance of convenience, and risk of irreparable injury. Where an injunction is proposed without notice, the procedural proviso requiring recorded reasons is mandatory. Ex parte restraint should be exceptional, should disclose the urgency justifying departure from notice, should be time-bound, and should be followed by immediate service of the plaint, application, and supporting documents. The plaintiff must also undertake not to continue or expand the disputed construction during the pendency of the application.

Conclusion: Ex parte injunctions can be issued only in exceptional urgency, with recorded reasons, short duration, prompt service, and an undertaking against further construction.

Final Conclusion: The appeals succeeded in part, with the Court clarifying the limited circumstances in which civil suits may lie against demolition action and prescribing safeguards governing ex parte injunctions in such matters.

Ratio Decidendi: A statutory bar on civil suits governing demolition action is not absolute where the challenged order is prima facie outside jurisdiction or contrary to mandatory procedure, and ex parte injunctions must comply strictly with the requirement of recorded reasons and limited, urgent operation.

---