( 1 ) THE instant miscellaneous appeal is sought to be filed by the appellant assailing the order dated 31-1-2007 passed by the learned Chief Judge, City Small Causes Court, hyderabad, in M. A. No. 82 of 2006. ( 2 ) THE unsuccessful appellant in M. A. No. 82 of 2006 is the appellant herein. He filed M. A. No. 82 of 2006 assailing the notice bearing No. 13/tp/mch/sd/04 dated 11-8-2004. That was a notice issued under section 456 of the Hyderabad Municipal corporations Act, 1955 (for short "hmc Act")requiring the appellant to vacate and remove the dilapidated house within 24 hours so as to prevent all causes of danger with an observation that in default the house would be pulled down or demolished departmentally by the Corporation. That notice was issued on the premise that the premises in question was in dangerous and serious condition and was likely to fall causing danger to any person occupying the premises and the surrounding neighbours and the public passing through the roads in front of the said premises. The appellant assailed the said notice on the premise that it was illegal and improper and got issued with a mala fide intention in collusion with the owners of the building i. e. the respondents 2 and 3; and that there was no evidence on record to substantiate the allegation that the said premises was in a dilapidated condition and was liable to be demolished to avoid damage or danger to the occupier or the public. ( 3 ) THE learned Chief Judge framed two points for determination, namely, (1) whether the impugned notice issued under section 456 of the HMC Act is barred by limitation? and (2) whether the impugned notice issued under Section 456 of the HMC act is liable to be set aside by allowing the appeal? After having heard on either side, the learned Judge dismissed the appeal under the impugned order. On point No. 1, it was found that the date mentioned on the top of the notice was tampered with and was altered from 11 -8-2004 to 17-6-2006 and, therefore, the appeal was highly belated. On point no. 2, the learned Judge was of the view that the condition of the building was such that it was poor even prior to the demolition of the building in part and, therefore, the premises was liable to be demolished. On point no. 2, the learned Judge was of the view that the condition of the building was such that it was poor even prior to the demolition of the building in part and, therefore, the premises was liable to be demolished. Eventually, the appeal was dismissed as aforesaid. That order is now being sought to be assailed, as aforesaid, in the instant appeal. ( 4 ) SRI B. Adinarayana Rao, learned counsel appearing for the respondents 2 and 3, seeks to contend that the instant appeal is not maintainable since the impugned order is not an appealable order. He then sought to sustain the findings given by the learned chief Judge both on the point of limitation and on merits. ( 5 ) THE learned standing counsel appearing for the first respondent-Corporation represents that there has been ample evidence including that of the expert to show the notice issued under Section 456 of the HMC Act was in fact served on appellant on 13-8-2004 and, therefore, it is demonstrably proved that the date appearing on the notice-Ex. A-1 as 17-6-2006 was tampered with so as to avoid the delay and, therefore, the finding that the appeal in M. A. No. 82 of 2006 was barred by limitation is quite unassailable. On merits also, it is sought to be contended that the conduct of the appellant is such that he is not entitled to any relief. ( 6 ) IN view of the rival contentions, the point as to the maintainability of the appeal shall have to be considered at the threshold. The other points as regards the limitation and merits can be taken up only if the instant appeal is maintainable. ( 7 ) THE provisions germane in this regard for consideration are Sections 456,459, 654, 655 and 656 of the HMC Act. Section 456 thereof postulates that if it appears to the commissioner that any structure is in a ruinous condition or likely to fall, or is in any way dangerous to any person occupying, resorting to or passing by, such structure or any other structure or place in the neighbourhood thereof, he may by notice in writing require the owner or occupier of such structure, either to pull down the structure or to secure or to remove or to repair such structure or thing so as to prevent all causes of danger there from. The Commissioner may, before asking to pull down the structure, if he thinks fit, require the said owner or occupier by the said notice, either forthwith or before proceeding to pull down, secure, remove or repair the structures or things, to set up a proper and sufficient hoard or fence for the protection of passers-by and other persons, with a convenient platform and hand-rail provided if there is room enough for the same to serve as footway for passengers outside of such hoard or fence. If the Commissioner for any reason is of the view that the danger from the structure is imminent, he may before giving notice as aforesaid or before the period of notice expires, fence off, take down, secure or repair the said structure or take such steps or cause work to be executed as may be required to arrest the danger. Where the commissioner is of the opinion whether on receipt of an application or otherwise that the only or the most convenient means for the owner or occupier of the structure to pull down, secure, remove or repair such structure is by entering any of the adjoining premises belonging to some other person, the commissioner may after giving such person a reasonable opportunity of stating any objection by an order in writing authorise the said owner or occupier to enter such adjoining premises. ( 8 ) SECTION 459 of the HMC Act, on the other hand, mandates that the Commissioner shall issue a notice under sub-sections (1)and (2) of Section 456 or sub-section (1) of section 457 or sub-section (1) of Section 458 after giving the owner or occupier, as the case may be, a reasonable opportunity of stating any objection and adducing evidence, if any, and after being satisfied that the objection which is raised is invalid or insufficient. In other words, the notice under section 459 shall precede the order under section 456. ( 9 ) SECTION 654 of the HMC Act is the provision which confers a right of appeal from certain orders to the Court of the Judge. As per this provision, an appeal shall lie to the Judge against the orders of the commissioner enumerated in clauses (1) to (14 ). Such an appeal shall be filed within one month from the date of orders of the commissioner. Clause (6) thereof is germane in the context for consideration. As per this provision, an appeal shall lie to the Judge against the orders of the commissioner enumerated in clauses (1) to (14 ). Such an appeal shall be filed within one month from the date of orders of the commissioner. Clause (6) thereof is germane in the context for consideration. It reads that as against the order of Commissioner requiring dangerous structure to be pulled down, secured or removed under Section 456, an appeal can be filed to the Judge under section 654. Similarly in clause (10) thereof, as against the order directing the demolition of building under Sections 498 and 499", an appeal lies to the judge. Under Section 498 if a building is likely to endangera public health or safety, the Commissioner by notice require the owner or occupier of such building to execute or direct such measures as may be deemed necessary for the prevention of such danger. Similarly under Section 499 if it appears to the Commissioner that the building in question is unfit for human habitation, he may apply to the Standing Committee to prohibit the further use of such building for such purpose. As against the orders passed under Sections 498 and 499, as can be seen from clause (10) of Section 654, appeals lay to the Chef Judge. Under Section 655, as against the order passed in appeal by the judge under Section 498 or 499, an appeal lies to the High Court. Similarly, Section 656 an appeal lies as against the order of the judge to the High Court regarding amount of payment of expenses for works executed. ( 10 ) FROM a perusal of the provisions hereinabove referred to, it is obvious that as against the order of Commissioner under section 456 of the HMC Act, an appeal lies to the Judge under clause (6) of Section 654; and as against the order of the Commissioner directing the demolition under Section 498 or 499, an appeal lies to the Judge under clause (10) of Section 654. As against the order passed by the Judge on appeal filed under Section clause (6) of Section 654, there is no provision in the Act which enables the unsuccessful party to file an appeal before the High Court. As against the order passed by the Judge on appeal filed under Section clause (6) of Section 654, there is no provision in the Act which enables the unsuccessful party to file an appeal before the High Court. Further, as against the order passed by the Judge in an appeal filed under clause (10) of Section 654 , an appeal lies to the High Court under Section 655. This is obvious from a perusal of the above provisions and the scheme of the HMC Act. ( 11 ) APPEAL is a creation of the statute and is vested right. Unless right of appeal is conferred no appeal can be maintained before the appellate Court. The distinction between appeal and suit cannot be lost sight of. For maintaining an appeal, there must be an enabling provision and for maintaining a suit there need not be any provision and suffice on the principle of ubi jus ibi remidium if the right of the suitor is violated and the suit is not barred. ( 12 ) BEARING the above established principle in mind, we have to see whether there is any enabling provision in maintaining the instant appeal. As discussed hereinabove, sections 654, 655 and 656 of the HMC Act do not confer any right of appeal qua the orders passed by the Judge under clause (6)of Section 654 in the appeal filed assailing the notice issued under Section 456. The notice issued under Section 456 was sought to be attacked by filing M. A. No. 82 of 2006 before the Chief Judge and the learned Judge dismissed the appeal under the impugned order. Therefore, as against that order obviously there is no express provision conferring the right of appeal to the appellant before this Court. ( 13 ) SRI Koneti Raja Reddy, learned counsel appearing for the appellant, seeks to contend that Section 670 of the HMC Act makes the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure (for brevity the Code) apply to appeals from original decrees or from the orders of the commissioner. Therefore, a second appeal can be maintained since the Code applies. I am afraid, I cannot accede to the said contention of the learned counsel. Sub section (1)of Section 670 reads as under: "670. Therefore, a second appeal can be maintained since the Code applies. I am afraid, I cannot accede to the said contention of the learned counsel. Sub section (1)of Section 670 reads as under: "670. Code of Civil Procedure to apply:- (1) Save as expressly provided by this chapter the provisions of the Code of civil Procedure, 1908, relating to appeals from original decrees shall apply to appeals to the Judge from the orders of the Commissioner and the provision of the said Code relating to appeals from appellate decrees shall apply to the appeals to the High Court. " ( 14 ) IT is visibly clear from a perusal of the above excerpted provision that the provisions of the Code are made applicable to the appeals filed before the Judge qua the orders of the Commissioner and to the appeals filed from the appellate decrees before the High court. Section 670 is obviously not a provision which confers right of appeal. On the other hand, it is procedural and it mandates that the provisions that are applicable to the appeals filed as against the original decrees and as against the appellate decrees, are applicable to the appeals filed to the Judge qua the orders of the Commissioner and the appeals filed as against the appellate orders before the High Court. In other words, there must be a separate provision for filing the appeals and if such appeals are filed in accordance with the said provision, the rules relating to the appeals in the Code are made applicable. The contention that Section 670 of the HMC Act provides for a right of appeal, for the reasons hereinabove discussed, is fallacious. The reasons for the fallacy being, firstly; that the Code confers right of appeal under Section 96 as against the original decrees. As against the decree passed by the appellate Court, a second appeal lies under Section 100 of the Code. To maintain an appeal before an appellate Court, there must be a decree as envisaged under section 2 of the Code. By no stretch of the imagination, the impugned notice issued by the Commissioner under Section 456 of the hmc Act can be considered as an original decree. To maintain an appeal before an appellate Court, there must be a decree as envisaged under section 2 of the Code. By no stretch of the imagination, the impugned notice issued by the Commissioner under Section 456 of the hmc Act can be considered as an original decree. Similarly, the order passed by the judge on an appeal filed qua the notice issued under Section 456 by the Commissioner cannot also be considered as an appellate decree so as to maintain a second appeal; that secondly, what Section 670 envisages is the applicability of the provisions of the code relating to appeals from original decrees to the appeals filed before the Judge as against the orders of the Commissioner and to the appeals filed before the High Court as against the appellate orders. If the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant were to be accepted, an appeal shall be filed before the appellate Court as if the notice issued under Section 456 of the HMC Act by the commissioner were a decree as envisaged under Section 2 of the Code. However, HMC act envisages an appeal to the Judge which expression is defined under clause (27) of section 2 thereof and it means in the cities of hyderabad and Secunderabad, the Chief judge, Court of Small Causes, Hyderabad. Therefore, a right of appeal has been provided qua the orders of the Commissioner under section 456 to the Chief Judge, Court of City small Causes, Hyderabad, to the exclusion of the original Civil appellate Court. Therefore, the notice issued by the Commissioner under section 456 cannot be considered as a decree as envisaged under Section 2 of the Code and the impugned order passed by the learned chief Judge cannot equally be considered as an appellate decree. Therefore, no second appeal can be maintained as against that order, as sought to be contended; and that more significantly, the HMC Act confers right of appeal specifically against certain orders which are obviously not decrees and, therefore, the provisions which confers right of appeal specifically exclude the other categories of orders as against which no right of appeal is provided under the Act. Therefore, it cannot legitimately be contended that when the HMC Act confers right of appeal against certain categories of orders, as against the other categories of orders left out without expressly conferring a right of appeal, the Code applies and, therefore, the appeal can be maintained. ( 15 ) THE learned counsel appearing for the appellant seeks to place reliance upon a judgment of this Court, to buttress his contention, in Municipal Corporation of hyderabad v. Tahera Begum. That was a case where the question arose was whether the Chief Judge could grant stay or not. It was sought to be contended that stay could be granted under Order 41, Rule 5 of the code in appeals filed under Section 654 of the HMC Act alone. Such a contention was repelled and this Court held that Section 670 thereof applies to all appeals sought to be filed under the HMC Act and it did not confine itself to the appeals filed under Section 654. The said decision is not an authority to show that under Section 670 an appeal could be maintained as against the order of the Judge which appeal was filed under Section 654 as against the order of the Commissioner. The legal position is thus crystal clear. Therefore, the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that under Section 670 the instant appeal can be maintained, merits no consideration. ( 16 ) THERE is no provision in the HMC Act which enables the appellant to file the instant appeal as against the order passed by the learned Judge. As discussed hereinabove, there must be a provision conferring the right of appeal. Otherwise appeal cannot be maintained. In view of this clear legal position and since a second appeal does not lie, the instant appeal cannot be maintained. In that view of the matter, the other points for determination as regards the limitation and merits of the case need not be discussed. ( 17 ) FOR the above reasons, the appeal must fail and is rejected at the threshold as not maintainable. However, under the circumstances, no order as to costs. .