JUDGEMENT - R.M. LODHA, J.:---This revision application is directed against the order passed by the Additional District Judge, Nagpur, on 15-12-1993, whereby he confirmed the ad interim injunction granted on 18-12-1992 on the application filed by Dureshnarayan Ramnarayan Jaiswal (non-applicant No. 1 herein) under section 286(5) of the City of Nagpur Corporation Act, 1948. 2. The only contention raised by the learned Counsel for the applicants in this revision application is that the Additional District Judge, Nagpur, had no jurisdiction to pass the preventive injunction on the application filed under section 286(5) of the City of Nagpur Corporation Act, 1948, and therefore, the impugned order passed by the Additional District Judge, Nagpur, is liable to be set aside. 3. On the other hand, Shri Voditel, the learned Counsel for the non-applicant No.1, submits that in the application filed by the non-applicant No. 1 under section 286(5) of the City of Nagpur Corporation Act the main relief was that non-applicant Nos. 1 and 2, if raised any construction by contravening the provisions of the City of Nagpur Corporation Act and the Building Bye laws made thereunder, the same be pulled down and the illegal construction carried out by the non-applicants, be removed. Shri Voditel submits that since the construction was going on, the interim relief by way of ad interim injunction against the present applicants was prayed for calling upon them to stop the illegal construction, pending disposal of the application under section 286(5) of the City of Nagpur Corporation Act.. 4. It would be seen that the present non-applicant No.1 Durgeshnarayan made an application under section 286(5) of the City of Nagpur Corporation Act, 1948, before the District Judge, Nagpur, on 18-12-1992. In the said application, said Durgeshnarayan averred that he was the owner of Municipal House No. 701 situated in Somwari Bazar Road, Sitabuldi, Nagpur, and the adjoining house was owned and possessed by the present applicants, viz., Ashok Anantram Chaurasia and Smt. Shivrani widow of Anantram Chaurasia. According to Durgeshnarayan, the present applicants have undertaken re-construction of their house adjoining his house without obtaining requisite sanction from the Commissioner of Nagpur Municipal Corporation. According to Durgeshnarayan, the present applicants have undertaken re-construction of their house adjoining his house without obtaining requisite sanction from the Commissioner of Nagpur Municipal Corporation. As stated above, said Durgeshnarayan prayed in the application that by grant of an ad interim injunction against the present applicants, they be directed to stop all construction activities being undertaken by them pending disposal of the application under section 286(5) of the City of Nagpur Corporation Act, 1948, and after hearing the parties be pleased to confirm the injunction against the present applicants and further orders be passed for pulling down all the construction carried out by them. It appears that the Additional District Judge, Nagpur, by way of an ad interim measure by an order dated 18-12-1992 issued ad interim injunction restraining the present applicants from carrying on the construction touching to the north wall of the house of Durgeshnarayan (non-applicant No.1 herein) till further orders and a show cause notice was issued returnable on 30-12-1992 as to why ad interim order passed by the Court on 18-12-1992 be not made absolute. 5. The present applicants filed their written statement before the Court below and submitted that they have not carried any construction work touching the north wall of the house of Durgeshnarayan. According to them, it was at least 3 feet away from the construction work of the house of Durgeshnarayan. The present applicants in the written statement before the Court below also averred that their construction was legal and was in accordance with the building plan approved by the Commissioner. The present applicants also set up the defence that the application filed by Durgeshnarayan was mala fide, based on incorrect information and, therefore, liable to be dismissed and the ad interim order passed by the Court on 18-12-1992 deserves to be vacated. 6. After hearing the parties, the Additional District Judge, Nagpur, by the impugned order dated 15-12-1993 has confirmed the ad interim injunction granted on 15-12-1992. 7. 6. After hearing the parties, the Additional District Judge, Nagpur, by the impugned order dated 15-12-1993 has confirmed the ad interim injunction granted on 15-12-1992. 7. On the basis of the arguments advanced by the learned Counsel for the parties, the only question which is required to be determined is whether in an application under section 286(5) of the City of Nagpur Corporation Act, 1948, the District Judge has jurisdiction to pass the preventive order, directing the person who is complained of violating the provisions of the City of Nagpur Corporation Act, 1948, and the bye-laws made thereunder, or that the District Court has only the power to issue an injunction for removal or alteration of any building on the ground that the said building has been constructed in contravention of the provision of the City if Nagpur Corporation Act, 1948, or the bye-laws made thereunder. 8. Section 286(5) of the City of Nagpur Corporation Act, 1948, reads as under: "286(5). Nothing in this section shall affect the right if the Corporation or any other person to apply to the District Court, Nagpur, for an injunction for the removal or alteration of any building on the ground that it contravenes any provision of this Act or of the byelaws made thereunder, but if the building is one in respect of which plans have been deposited and the plans have been passed by the Commissioner or notice that they have been rejected has not been given within the prescribed period after the deposit thereof and if the work has been executed in accordance with the plans, the Court on granting an injunction shall have power to order the Corporation to pay to the owner of the work such compensation as the Court thinks just, but before making any such order the Court shall cause the Commissioner if not a party, to be joined as a party to the proceeding." 9. A bare look at the said section would reveal that in addition to the other rights given to the Corporation under sub-sections (1) and (2) of section 286, the Corporation or any other person has been protected from seeking appropriate injunction order from the District Court, Nagpur, for removal or alteration of any building made by any person in contravention of any of the provisions of the said Act of 1948 or the bye-laws made thereunder. On its face, by exercising the power under section 286(5) of the Act of 1948, the District Court, Nagpur, cannot assume the jurisdiction of granting an injunction in favour of the Corporation or any other person complaining about the unauthorised building being raised in contravention of the provisions of the Act of 1948 or the byelaws made thereunder. Extra ordinary power of removal or alteration of the building has been conferred on the District Court if it finds that it contravenes any provision of the Act of 1948 or the byelaws made thereunder, and in exercise of such power, it cannot be said that the power of grant of preventive relief is conferred on the District Court. 10. This question came up for consideration before this Court in (Smt. Sumitradevi and another v. Laxmandas Arjundas Lakhwani and others)1, Civil Revision Application No. 436 of 1989, and this Court in the judgment dated 21-8-1990 held as under: "3. The question raised on behalf of the applicant is whether the District Court acting under the provisions of section 286(5) of the City of Nagpur Corporation Act could not issue a prohibitary injunction. Under section 286(1) the Commissioner has the power to require the owner either to pull down or to remove the work or if he so elects, to effect such alterations therein as may be necessary to make it comply with the Town Planning Scheme mentioned under section 271 or any building bye laws made under section 415. Under section 286(1) the Commissioner has the power to require the owner either to pull down or to remove the work or if he so elects, to effect such alterations therein as may be necessary to make it comply with the Town Planning Scheme mentioned under section 271 or any building bye laws made under section 415. Under sub-section (5) nothing in the section shall affect the right if the Corporation or any other person to apply to the District Court, Nagpur, for an injunction for the removal or alteration of any building on the ground that it contravenes any provision of the Act, or the byelaws made thereunder but if the building is one in respect of which plans have been deposited and the plans have been passed by the Commissioner notice that they have been rejected has not been given within the prescribed period after the deposit thereof and if the work has been executed in accordance with the plans, the Court on granting an injunction shall have power to order the Corporation to pay to the owner of the work such compensation as the Court thinks just, but before making any such order the Court shall cause the Commissioner if not a party, to be joined as a party to the proceeding. Obviously sub-section (5) of section 286 gives the person affected a special right of access to apply for an injunction for the removal or alteration of any building on the grounds which are mentioned above and it does not speak of any preventive relief which can be granted by the District Court. According to Shri Sharma, the learned Counsel for the applicants, section 377 of the City of Nagpur Corporation Act provides that for the purposes of any appeal, inquiry or proceeding under the Act, the High Court and the District Court, Nagpur, may exercise all the powers conferred on them by the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, and Central Provinces and Berar Courts Act, 1917, as the case may be, and shall observe the procedure prescribed in the said enactment, so far as it is not inconsistent with the provisions of the Act. The submission was that even the powers under Order 39 can be exercised by the District Court in this respect. The submission was that even the powers under Order 39 can be exercised by the District Court in this respect. But this contention overlooks that the powers under Order 39 can be exercised in a suit and the application under section 286(5) can by no stretch of imagination be equated with a suit. A reference was also made to the powers under section 141 of the Civil Procedure Code, but that section states that the procedure provided in this Code in regard to suits shall be followed, as far as it can be made applicable in all proceedings in any Court of Civil jurisdiction. The conjoint effect of section 141 of the Civil Procedure Code and section 377 of the City of Nagpur Corporation Act will be only that for granting the relief which is contemplated by section 286(5) of the City of Nagpur Corporation Act, the procedure and the powers prescribed under the Code of Civil Procedure, can be availed of. These powers, however, would have to be exercised for the purpose of the limited relief which can be granted under section 286(5) of the City of Nagpur Corporation Act. The view that I am taking is supported by the decision of this Court in Appeal No.22 of 1978 from Order (Shri Nagsi Hirji v. Satyanarayan)2, decided on 14th July 1978, where the learned Judge observed that the injunction not contemplated by the terms of the provisions of section 286(5) cannot be issued on the basis of the provisions of section 141 of the Civil Procedure Code. It was also observed there that there can be no doubt about the interpretation of the expression "injunction for the removal or alteration of any building" and it means that after the construction has actually started and the person aggrieved asked for its removal or alteration, the provisions of section 286(5) of the Corporation Act would come into operation I am bound by the view taken by the learned Judge in the above case and I find that the District Court has right in vacating the ad interim injunction which has been granted upon the fuller consideration of the matter. There is, therefore, no substance in the present revision application." 11. There is, therefore, no substance in the present revision application." 11. I am in agreement with the view expressed in the aforesaid judgment, and in my view also, sub-section (5) of section 286 of the Act of 1948 does not empower the District Court to grant any preventive relief and such an order is beyond the jurisdiction of the District Court under sub-section (5) of section 286 of the Act of 1948. Grant of preventive relief cannot be assumed and cannot be held to be inherent in the power to be exercised by the District Court under section 286(5), which is limited to the extent of grant of injunction for removal or alteration of any building on the ground that such building has been constructed in contravention of the provisions of the Act of 1948 or the byelaws made thereunder. 12. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the order passed by the Additional District Judge, Nagpur, on 15-12-1993, affirming the ad interim injunction granted on 18-12-1992, is therefore, without jurisdiction and liable to be set aside. 13. Consequently, this revision application is allowed and the order passed by the Additional District Judge, Nagpur, on 15-12-1993 is quashed and set aside. Parties are directed to bear their own costs. Revision application allowed.