1. This revision petition has been filed by the petitioners against the order of 3rd Additional District Judge, Srinagar, who vide his order dated 02.11.2006 set-aside the order of the trial court dated 3rd of March, 2005. 2. That the plaintiff/respondent filed a suit seeking declaration to the extent that she is entitled to raise construction of five storey shopping cum commercial complex in accordance with the revised site plan submitted by her on the ground of deemed permission/ sanction as provided in Section 7(iii) of the Jammu and Kashmir Control of Building Operation and Revised Regulations Act 2001 and further a decree of perpetual injunction restraining the defendants from causing any interference into construction activities undertaken by the plaintiff in accordance with the said site plan. An application for temporary injunction was also filed. 3. The brief facts of the case are that vide building permission order No. 571 of 2002 dated 3rd of January, 2002, the plaintiff was granted building permission for construction of double storey shopping complex at Gogjibagh, Srinagar on a plot of land comprised under survey Nos. 1781/836, 1782/836. The building permission was granted subject to various conditions which include maintenance of set-backs. The plaintiff had started the construction. He filed a revised site plan to the respondents and according to the said site plan she sought permission to raise five storeys building on the said piece of land. It is averred in the plaint that the revised site plan was submitted in the year 2003 and the copies of the said plan were sent to the Municipal Authorities, as consequence of which the plaintiff presumed that they had no objections. This assumption of the plaintiff was based upon Regulation 7 (iii) of the Jammu and Kashmir Control of Building Operation and Revised Regulations Act 2001. It is contended by the plaintiff that since defendant/ petitioners have not communicated any order, it is deemed that they have no objection. On this deemed permission she started raising construction. In essence, the edifice of case is that she is entitled under law to raise construction up to five stories by invoking Regulation 7(iii) of the Jammu and Kashmir Control of Building Operation and Revised Regulations Act 2001. 4. On this deemed permission she started raising construction. In essence, the edifice of case is that she is entitled under law to raise construction up to five stories by invoking Regulation 7(iii) of the Jammu and Kashmir Control of Building Operation and Revised Regulations Act 2001. 4. On the other hand the defendants stated that the application for grant of temporary injunction is misconceived as the main relief claimed by the plaintiff is the same as is sought in the present application. The other ground taken by the defendants was that Section 13 and 14 of the Jammu & Kashmir Control of Building Operation and Revised Regulations Act 2001, clearly debar the civil court from entertaining any suit or making any interim order whether by way of injunction or stay against the order of authority concerned or the appellate officer and to entertain any suit or proceedings in respect of demolition of any building. The construction raised was prohibited by the Master Plan as published by the Government. 5. The trial court dismissed the application on two grounds; a) that since it was the main relief claimed by the plaintiff in the suit, the application was not maintainable; b) that the deemed sanction could not be invoked by the plaintiff as the said construction was prohibited by the Master plan. 6. Trial court clearly stated that the commercial use of land was in violation of the Master Plan. No finding was returned by the trial court in respect of other plea that no suit could be filed in terms of Section 13 and 14 of the Act. Thus, an appeal was taken up before the appellate court. The appellate court after hearing the parties allowed the appeal and set-aside the order of trial court. The appellate courts finding was that the plaintiff had already completed the construction of the building and it was incumbent upon the court to protect the list during the pendency of the suit. It has also been observed by the appellate court in its judgment that the construction was going on right from 2002 and it was only in the month of November, 2004 that the Municipal Authorities issued the notice of demolition under Section 7(i) of the Act. Implied in such an observation is the fact that the construction was going on in connivance with the authorities of the Municipality. Implied in such an observation is the fact that the construction was going on in connivance with the authorities of the Municipality. The appellate court set-aside the order passed by the trial court. Under these circumstances, the present revision petition is before this court. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 8. It is not in dispute that the construction of the building was initiated by the plaintiff immediately after the permission was granted to him for raising two storied building in terms of the permission granted by the defendants/ petitioners. The construction was still at the infancy stage when a revised site plan was submitted by the plaintiff. The Municipality did not react to the site plan and the plaintiff assumed that they had no objection for the said revised site plan. This assumption was based on Regulation 7(iii) of the Jammu and Kashmir Control of Building and Revised Regulations Act 2001, which provide in case no permission is granted within the stipulated period; it shall be deemed that permission has been granted. Admittedly, the Municipality issued notice to the respondent in November, 2004 and consequently passed order of demolition under Section 7(iii) of the Act. Against this, a statutory appeal has been filed by the respondent before the appellate authority. Before awaiting outcome of the appeal the present civil suit has been filed. 9. In the present revision petition the contention raised is that even if it is assumed that plaintiff could take benefit of Regulation 7(iii) of the Jammu and Kashmir Control of Building and Revised Regulations Act 2001, that too is also subject to the condition that it should not violate the Master Plan. The assumption by the plaintiff that there is a deemed sanction in his favour by invoking Regulation 7 sub- clause (3) of the aforesaid Regulations is misplaced. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that merely because period of ninety days has expired would not automatically be construed as deemed permission as other conditions stipulated in the Regulation are to be fulfilled. It has manifestly been contested by the petitioners that the permission to raise a commercial structure in the area was in violation of the Master Plan envisaged for Srinagar City. It has manifestly been contested by the petitioners that the permission to raise a commercial structure in the area was in violation of the Master Plan envisaged for Srinagar City. The second ground of attack of the petitioner is that Sections 14 & 15 of the Jammu and Kashmir Control of Building and Revised Regulations Act 2001, debars filing of any civil suit or temporary injunction application against any authority concerned or the appellate order passed. 10. On the other hand, the contention of the respondent has been that there is no ground for this Court to interfere as it has limited power to interfere in its revisional jurisdiction. It is further contended that the construction of the building is complete and it is in the interests of justice that lis is to be protected till suit is decided and lastly it is urged that plaintiff/ respondent has a right to raise construction in terms of the revised plan submitted by her on the basis of deemed permission in terms of Regulation 7(iii) of the Jammu & Kashmir Control of Building and Revised Regulations Act 200. 11. Both the courts below have decided the issue without addressing the main contention which arises in the present suit. The Trial court has in its order dated 3rd of March, 2005 stated that jurisdiction to entertain the suit and pass interim orders was questioned by the defendant/petitioners but no finding is returned by the trial court on this issue. The appellate court has further been swayed by the fact that since the construction is complete and it is essential that lis is to be protected without understanding the import of the controversy involved in the petition. The main controversy that arises in the present revision petition is as to whether the civil court had the jurisdiction to entertain the suit in its present form. According to the petitioner, the bar is created by Section 14 and 15 of the Jammu & Kashmir Control of Building Operation Act 1988. For ready reference. Sections 14 and 15 are reproduced as under: "14. Bar of Jurisdiction. No court shall have jurisdiction to. (a) make any interim order whether by way of injunction or stay or in any other manner against the order of the Authority concerned or the appellate officer; (b) entertain any suit or proceeding in respect of demolition of any building. 15. Sections 14 and 15 are reproduced as under: "14. Bar of Jurisdiction. No court shall have jurisdiction to. (a) make any interim order whether by way of injunction or stay or in any other manner against the order of the Authority concerned or the appellate officer; (b) entertain any suit or proceeding in respect of demolition of any building. 15. Finality of orders. Save as otherwise provided in this Act every order made by an Authority or the appellate officer shall be final and shall not be called in question in any suit, application or execution proceeding." 12. According to the petitioner a plain reading of Sections 14 & 15 will reveal that no suit can be entertained in respect of demolition of any building nor can any interim order whether by way of injunction or stay be passed against the authority or appellate officer. The controversy that has been raised in the civil relates to the demolition of the building raised by the plaintiff in violation of the sanctioned plan. This order of demolition was subject matter of challenge before the appellate court. The plaintiff admittedly has pursued two remedies against the same order. Even through the plaintiff has been careful enough not question the order of demolition but in essence he has sought a permission to raise construction on the basis of revised site plan. I do not want to return any finding on this question as to whether civil court has the jurisdiction to entertain the suit. I leave it for the trial court to return finding on this question after hearing both the parties. 13. According to the petitioner the finding of the appellate court that since the construction is complete, lis has to be protected and plaintiff has to be given ample opportunity to prove his case during the trial is not correct. Completion of the construction in violation of the site plan could not empower the plaintiff with any legal right. It is also not in dispute that the main relief claimed by the plaintiff in the suit was the one claimed by her in the application. As a matter of fact under the garb of stay order plaintiff was raising construction without first establishing his right to raise the same more particularly when there is already an order of demolition against her. As a matter of fact under the garb of stay order plaintiff was raising construction without first establishing his right to raise the same more particularly when there is already an order of demolition against her. The appellate court has not addressed itself to these issues and has allowed the appeal without taking these material issues into question. It is also contended that while allowing the appeal the appellate court has not taken any undertaking from the plaintiff-respondent that in case she fails in the civil suit, she will demolish the building at her own costs. 14. All the issues raised by the petitioner in my opinion have been overlooked by the appellate court. However, it is admitted that the construction has been completed by the respondents and the building is complete in all respects. It will not be appropriate to pass any order in this revision petition affecting the right of the respondents at this stage. If the construction is still under process this court could have intervened and stayed the same. I do agree with the view of learned appellate court that construction is complete and the lis is to be protected during the course of trial. 1 do not want to disturb this finding of the appellate court. However, the appellate court will seek an undertaking from the plaintiff-respondent in case she fails in the civil suit; she will demolish the building at her own risk and costs. 15. Since the construction has been completed by the respondents and it is reported that the building is complete in all respects. It will not be appropriate to pass any order affecting the right of the respondents at this stage. I do agree with the view of the learned appellate that since the construction is complete; the lis is to be protected during course of trial. 16. However, I find necessary that the trial court before proceeding for the trial should frame a preliminary issue regarding maintainability of the suit. This is necessary looking to the nature of the controversy involved and the manner in which the matter has been dealt with. I direct the trial court to frame a preliminary issue with regard to the maintainability of the suit and dispose of the same within a period of three months from the date record is received by him. This is necessary looking to the nature of the controversy involved and the manner in which the matter has been dealt with. I direct the trial court to frame a preliminary issue with regard to the maintainability of the suit and dispose of the same within a period of three months from the date record is received by him. It is made clear that no time will be extended and in case either of the parties do not cooperate the trial court will proceed with the matter and decide the same within the time specified above. 17. Before parting with the judgment, I am in full agreement with the learned appellate court that the construction raised by the plaintiff was in connivance with the officials of the Municipal Authorities. The plaintiff has started construction in the year 2002 and immediately thereafter she submitted revised site plan to raise construction up to five stories. Right from 2002 till 2004 no steps were taken by the Municipal Authorities to serve a notice on the plaintiff/respondent. They woke up only in the month of November, 2004 when they issued first notice on 08-11-2004. It is a matter of grave concern that the plaintiff was permitted to raise construction without any obstruction by the petitioners/defendants. It is a matter of grave concern that constructions are being raised by unscrupulous litigants in connivance with the officials of the Municipal Corporation. 18. The petition is accordingly disposed of with a direction that trial court will frame a preliminary issue, hear the parties and decide the same within a period of three months before proceeding in the main trial. The undertaking, as directed hereinabove, may be also taken from the plaintiff. To this extent the finding of the appellate court is modified. 19. The revision petition is accordingly disposed of. Record be sent to the trial court. Parties to appear before the trial court on 15.10.2008. Record of the trial court be sent back.