Statutory appellate remedy bars civil suit for demolition-related injunction unless the action is a jurisdictional nullity.

A civil suit challenging threatened demolition and sealing was held barred because the municipal statute provided a complete notice-and-appeal framework, including further appellate review. The Court applied the principle that civil jurisdiction should not be invoked where an efficacious statutory remedy exists, and that intervention is limited to cases of patent lack of jurisdiction or action outside the statute. Since the plaint sought injunction relief despite the available statutory mechanism and did not show a jurisdictional nullity, the suit was not maintainable and the plaint was liable to be rejected.

---

---

Issues: Whether the suit was maintainable in view of the statutory appeal mechanism and the bar of jurisdiction, and whether the plaint was liable to be rejected.

Analysis: The plaint challenged threatened demolition and sealing on the basis of want of notice, but the statutory scheme under the municipal law provided a notice, an order of demolition, an appeal against such order, and a further appellate remedy. The Court applied the principle that civil suits should not ordinarily be entertained where an efficacious statutory remedy exists, and that interference in civil jurisdiction is justified only where the impugned action is shown to be a nullity for jurisdictional error or to be outside the statute. The relief sought was also one of injunction, which is unavailable when an equally efficacious alternative remedy is provided by law. The plaint did not bring the case within the exceptional category warranting civil court intervention.

Conclusion: The suit was barred by the statutory bar on jurisdiction and by the availability of an equally efficacious appellate remedy, and the plaint was liable to be rejected.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a special statute provides a complete appellate mechanism against demolition-related action, a civil suit for injunction is not maintainable except in cases of patent lack of jurisdiction or action outside the statute.

---