Limitation for municipal demolition suits starts on the demolition order date, not when the order is executed.

Limitation for suits challenging municipal demolition orders begins when a clear and unequivocal order threatening demolition is passed, not when the demolition is later executed. Notices under Section 351 of the Bombay Municipal Corporation Act, followed by orders directing removal of unauthorised structures forthwith and warning of demolition at risk and cost, were held to give rise to an immediate cause of action. Section 527(1)(b) required the suit to be filed within six months from that accrual. The view that limitation starts only upon actual demolition was rejected because it would defer the statutory clock and create uncertainty. The suits filed after six months were therefore time-barred.

---

---

Issues: Whether the suits challenging the demolition-related orders were barred by limitation because the cause of action accrued on the date of the orders and not on the date of their execution.

Analysis: The notices issued under Section 351 of the Bombay Municipal Corporation Act culminated in orders directing removal of the unauthorized structures forthwith, with an express direction for demolition at risk and cost if compliance was not made. That order amounted to a clear and unequivocal threat affecting the appellants' rights, and no further statutory warning or action was necessary before the right to sue arose. Section 527(1)(b) required the suit to be instituted within six months next after accrual of the cause of action. The argument that limitation would start only when demolition was actually implemented was rejected, as it would postpone the statutory starting point and introduce uncertainty into the scheme of the Act.

Conclusion: The cause of action accrued on 2 September 1994 when the orders were passed, the suits filed beyond six months were time-barred, and the dismissal of the suits on limitation was correct.

Ratio Decidendi: For a suit challenging municipal demolition orders, limitation under the statute begins when a clear and effective order or threat infringing the right is made, not when the order is later executed.

---