JUDGMENT 1. The appeal is against the Judgment and order dated 14-03-2011 in L.C Suit no 325 of 2011 passed by the learned City Civil judge, Mumbai whereby the suit as well as the Notice of Motion was dismissed in liminem. By civil application 2797 of 2011 same prayer is made as in the Appeal. 2. The facts stated are:- The appellant (Original plaintiffs referred hereinafter as Plaintiff) claimed that it is a registered partnership firm which had acquired suit property Gala No.24/25, CTS No. 240-C of village Kurla - 1 at Khetani Industrial Estate, Kurla, Mumbai, at auction Sale. According to the appellant, the residents of the Society had filed Writ petition no. 1763 of 2010 alleging the unauthorised additions, alterations to the existing premises. The Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai (hereinafter referred as MCGM) issued notice under Section 354-A of the M.M.C. Act. This notice was issued requiring the plaintiff-appellant to stop the unlawful construction detected by the MCGM. The notice was challenged in the Suit no. 2332 of 2010 which is still pending before the Bombay City Civil Court, Mumbai. According to the plaintiff-appellant the suit structure was protected by interim order in the said Suit. 3. While the said suit remained pending, yet the plaintiff applied to the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai for regularization of the internal partitions & repairs to the existing roof and floor at Gala no 24 and 25 i.e. suit structure at CTS no 240/C at Khetani Industrial Estate at Kurla. It is averred that by letter dated 29-01-2011 the MCGM arbitrarily closed the file on the ground of non-compliance of the requirements, which according to the plaintiff were complied with. The plaintiff therefore prayed for the relief of mandatory injunction against the MCGM for an order to consider the proposal of the plaintiff for regularization of the suit structure, which is subject of the notice in the previously instituted suit. As also to restrain the MCGM from acting upon the letter dated 11-01-2011, Served upon the plaintiff on 29-11-2011. According to the plaintiff the manner in which the file of the plaintiff was closed by the MCGM was amounting to “waiver” on the part of the MCGM for the notice under Section 527 of the MMC Act. As also to restrain the MCGM from acting upon the letter dated 11-01-2011, Served upon the plaintiff on 29-11-2011. According to the plaintiff the manner in which the file of the plaintiff was closed by the MCGM was amounting to “waiver” on the part of the MCGM for the notice under Section 527 of the MMC Act. The suit was valued for the purposes of the jurisdiction of the court and the court fees at Rs.1000/- only citing Section 6(iv) J of the Bombay Court Fees Act. 4. Normally the plaintiff in such suit of mandatory injunction is expected to state the market value of the constructions sought to be protected from the proposed demolition action so as to value the suit appropriately under the Suit valuation Act for the purposes of the jurisdiction of the Court and also to value the suit for the purposes of the payment of court fees. The valuation clause in the plaint was vague and evasive. Be that as it may, The suit was instituted admittedly without issuance and service of the pre-suit statutory notice is required under section 527 of the Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act Section 527 reads as under:- 527. Protection of persons acting under this Act against suits. (1) No suit shall be instituted against the corporation or against [the Commissioner, the General Manager, or the Director or a Deputy Municipal Commissioner, or against any municipal officer ox servant, in respect of any act done in pursuance or execution or intended execution of this Act or in respect of any alleged neglect or default in the execution of this Act— (a) until the expiration of one month next after notice in writing has been, in the case of the corporation, left at the chief municipal office and, in the case of [the Commissioner, the General Manager] [or the Director] or of a Deputy Municipal Commissioner or of a municipal officer or servant delivered to him or left at his office or place of abode, stating with reasonable particularity the cause of action and the name and place of abode of me intending plaintiff and of his attorney or agent, if any, for the purpose of such suit ; nor (b) unless it is commenced within six months next after the accrual of the cause of action. (2) At the trial of any such suit— (c) the plaintiff shall not be permitted to go into evidence of any cause of action except such as is set forth in the notice delivered or left by him as aforesaid; (d) the claim, if it be for damages shall be dismissed if tender of sufficient amends shall have been made before the suit was instituted or if, after the institution of the suit, a sufficient sum of money is paid into Court with costs. (3) When the defendant in any such suit is a municipal officer or servant, payment of the sum or of any part of any sum payable by him in or in consequence of the suit whether in respect of cost, charges, expenses, compensation for damages or otherwise, may be made, with the [previous] sanction of the standing committee [or the Bombay Electric Supply and Transport Committee, from the municipal fund or the Bombay Electric Supply and Transport Fund, as the case may be. 5. It is clear from the provision of Section 527of the said Act that it is prohibitory in terms that no suit can be instituted against a Municipal corporation or any of its officers in respect of any act done good faith until pre-suit statutory notice in writing has been duly served and delivered at the office of the Municipal Corporation or left at it's office. The suit must also commence within six months since accrual of cause of action. It must state; (i) the cause of action for the proposed suit; (ii) name, description and place of residence of the plaintiffs, who will sue. (iii) the relief which the plaintiff claims. Furthermore, the plaint shall contain a statement that such notice has been so duly served, delivered or left. Such notice though mandatory is capable of being express or implied waiver. The requirements stated above are mandatory and for the benefit of Municipal Corporation or its Officers to be sued in respect of any act done in good faith. Furthermore, the plaint shall contain a statement that such notice has been so duly served, delivered or left. Such notice though mandatory is capable of being express or implied waiver. The requirements stated above are mandatory and for the benefit of Municipal Corporation or its Officers to be sued in respect of any act done in good faith. In the present case the suit was instituted by the partnership firm which was stated as suitably registered partnership firm M/s. Akash Impex instituted against the MCGM, a public authority requiring the pre-suit statutory notice, hence in view of the provisions of Order 30 C.P. Code the plaintiff firm ought to have at least disclosed the names of the Partners of the registered partnership firm who were partners at the time of accrual of cause of action and when suit is instituted. This fact was not disclosed in the plaint. Section 69(2) of the Indian partnership Act prescribes that no suit to enforce a right arising from a contract shall be instituted in any Court by or on behalf of a firm against any third party unless the firm is registered and the persons suing are or have been shown in the Register of Firms as partners in the firm. The plaintiff firm claimed that it became entitled to the suit property under an Auction Sale (Contract). The suit was, therefore, to enforce right which arose from the Contract of sale. 6. The mandatory requirements of Section 527 of the said Act serves policy of law and a definite public purpose to protect Municipal corporation from unnecessary, expensive; avoidable and lengthy litigation initiated by means of a civil suit. The object of pre-suit statutory notice is to put on alert the notice-MCGM and/or its officials concerned about the details or particulars of the proposed suit so that it may through its responsible officer actively and expeditiously reply to the notice from the prospective litigant with a view to avoid litigation or to negotiate just settlement or, at least, have courtesy to tell the prospective plaintiff as to why his claim is being resisted. It is legitimate expectation that notices when public authority which is entitled to receive pre-suit statutory notice as mandatory requirement according to law in such cases shall be reasonably prompt to respond by reply to the notice received. It is legitimate expectation that notices when public authority which is entitled to receive pre-suit statutory notice as mandatory requirement according to law in such cases shall be reasonably prompt to respond by reply to the notice received. The public authority MCGM in this case upon acknowledgment of the pre-suit notice would have no justification for failure to respond to the statutory notice issued by any rate payer citizen in the modern days of communication by quick messaging services of E-mail, fax, speed couriers, mobile phone communications etc. The salutary provision is often rendered futile and reduced to an empty ritual by sheer inaction or dormancy which can only help disgruntled and dishonest litigants seeking to protect illegal constructions to buy time by means of long lasting civil suit resorting to pleas such as “implied” or “deemed” waiver of the salutary and mandatory requirement of the pre-suit statutory notice. Three Judge Bench of the Apex Court in the case of Salem Advocates Bar Association, Tamil Nadu vs. Union of India: (2005) 6 SCC 344 , while making observation about requirement of pre-suit statutory notice under section 80 of C.P. Code held that the notice period of two months have been provided so that Government shall examine the claim put up in the notice and has sufficient time to send a suitable reply. The underlying object is to curtail the litigation; scope of dispute and controversy. Wherever the statutory provision requires service of notice as a condition precedent for filing of the suit and observing prescribed period of limitation thereof, notice concerned is expected to deal with it receptively, so as to send prompt reply. The provision casts an important and implied duty upon the notice concerned to send an appropriate reactive reply to such notice. The Apex Court in Salem Bar Association's case (supra) directed thus: "Having regard to the existing state of affairs, we direct all concerned Governments, Central or State or other authorities whenever any statute requires service of notice against it, to as a condition precedent for filing of suit or other proceedings nominate within a period of three months, an officer who shall be made responsible to ensure that replies to notices under section 80 or similar provisions are sent within a period stipulated in a particular legislation. The replies shall be sent after due application of mind. The replies shall be sent after due application of mind. Despite such nomination, if the Court finds that either the notice has not been replied or reply is evasive and vague and has been sent without proper application of mind, the Court shall ordinarily award heavy cost against Government and direct it to take appropriate action against concerned Officer including recovery of costs from him". 7. The MCGM and the official concerned must note the above directions from the Honourable Supreme Court of India to make amends otherwise courts would perform unpleasant task in such cases to impose heavy costs and to direct appropriate disciplinary action against the public officials concerned found negligent or lax in performing their official duty and/or failure to respond to the pre-suit statutory notice received by them. 8. The full Bench of the Bombay High Court in Vasant Ambadas Pandit vs. Bombay Municipal Corporation and others: AIR 1981 Bombay 394, held that;.... "in our opinion, the true legal position in this behalf is that no suit can be instituted without service of the notice if such service of the notice is required statutorily as a condition precedent. The giving of notice is a condition precedent to the exercise of jurisdiction." 9. Pre-suit statutory notice is held mandatory but the question would arise as to what must be the consequence if the MCGM for whose benefit the protection of pre-suit statutory notice is granted fails to respond to the statutory notice within reasonable period or threatens an action to demolish the suit structure and by its conduct compel the plaintiff to institute the suit for an injunction order in quia timet nature, full Bench observed further that the requirement of the pre-suit statutory notice being procedural is capable of being lawfully waived by the party-defendant, but then undoubtedly, the waiver has to be established by the plaintiff and once the preliminary plea of “waiver” raised by the plaintiff is tried and proved, then upon such waiver the civil court gets jurisdiction to entertain and try the suit. A party defending such suit which is instituted without service of pre-suit statutory notice has right to object at earliest opportunity that the civil suit could not have been instituted without the mandatory compliance of statutory requirements of the pre-suit notice. A party defending such suit which is instituted without service of pre-suit statutory notice has right to object at earliest opportunity that the civil suit could not have been instituted without the mandatory compliance of statutory requirements of the pre-suit notice. On this premise, it is urged that it is choice of the defendant public authority to raise preliminary objection as to jurisdiction of the civil court to entertain the suit or to waive the objection of procedural requirement by continuing to participate in the suit by filing written statement, making adjournment applications etc. and otherwise participating in the further continuation of proceedings in the suit. It is urged that if the defendant public authority in such suit continue to participate in the suit without enforcing its right to object to the institution of the civil suit filed without compliance of requirements of the pre-suit statutory notice, the defendant's conduct of continued participation in the suit without raising the preliminary issue as to the jurisdiction of the civil Court to entertain and try the civil suit and participation therein may be established as "deemed waiver" of procedural requirement of the pre-suit statutory notice and, on that basis, when the "waiver" is established by the plaintiff, the trial Court may have to proceed further to decide the suit on merits. It is well known that due to an ever-increasing pendency of the litigation a Civil Suit in its routine course takes long years for its final decision on merits. In such case, the plaintiff may be left remediless and even if remedy is available, may have to start litigation/suit afresh if rigid view is taken. It would also result in huge waste of energy, time and money. Therefore, the argument is that Section 527 of the MMC Act may be construed as derogable provision if the party defendant in such suit by its conduct of continuance of participation in the suit allow the plaintiff to plead and establish "deemed waiver" of pre-suit statutory notice, then Civil Court may have to record finding as to its jurisdiction to entertain suit and proceed further to decide the suit on merits because civil court can try all suits unless the suits are barred by law expressly or by implication. The basic rule is Ouster of jurisdiction is not to be readily inferred. The basic rule is Ouster of jurisdiction is not to be readily inferred. Even in case jurisdiction is barred by any statutory provision court of plenary jurisdiction has power to decide its own jurisdiction by recording a finding as to jurisdictional fact. In this regard, in Dwarka Prasad Agrawal (D) by LRs and another vs. Ramesh Chander Agrawal and others: (2003) 6 SCC 220 , the Apex Court observed, “.........The dispute between the parties was eminently a civil dispute and not a dispute under the provisions of Companies Act. Section 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure confers jurisdiction upon all civil courts to determine all disputes of civil nature unless the same is barred under a statute, either expressly or by necessary implication. Bar of jurisdiction of Civil Court is not to be readily inferred. A provision seeking to bar jurisdiction of a Civil Court requires strict interpretation. The Court, it is well-settled, would normally lean in favour of construction, which would uphold retention of jurisdiction of the Civil Court..." 10. In United India Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Ajay Sinha and another, (2008) 7 SCC 454 , in para 32 Apex Court observed thus; "This aspect of the matter had not been argued before the Division Bench of the High Court. The counsel appearing were remiss in bringing the same to the notice of the Court the binding precedents, as regards the jurisdictional aspect of the civil court in the light of Section 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure. “ 11. Therefore, it is fundamental presumption in statutory interpretation that ordinary Civil Courts have jurisdiction to decide all matters of a civil nature. As a corollary: (a) provisions excluding jurisdiction of civil court should receive strict construction (see: Bhagwat Singh vs. State of Rajasthan AIR 1964 SC 444 , Raichand vs Union of India, AIR 1964 SC 1268 and; (b) Provisions conferring jurisdiction on authorities and Tribunalsother than Civil Courts (see Kasturi and Sons vs Salivateswaran AIR 1958 SC 507 ; Upper Doab Sugar Mills vs. Shabdara (Delhi) Saharanpur Light Railway : AIR 1963 SC 217 , have to be strictly construed. An objection as to jurisdiction of the Court to entertain and try the suit ought to be taken at preliminary stage of the suit at or before settlement of the issues. An objection as to jurisdiction of the Court to entertain and try the suit ought to be taken at preliminary stage of the suit at or before settlement of the issues. The submission is that the defect as to noncompliance of Sec. 527 of the Act is not such a defect which can absolutely take away inherent jurisdiction of the Court to decide plea of waiver raised by the plaintiff and if finding as to waiver is recorded in favour of the plaintiff the Civil Court may proceed to try the suit on merits and pass the decree. The mere absence of pre-suit statutory notice would not affect the fundamental jurisdiction of the civil court to decide the question of “waiver” as preliminary issue as to whether the civil court can entertain the civil suit? The preliminary issue when raised ought to be dealt with urgently before the civil court would cross the procedural statutory bar arising from the procedural lapse on the part of the plaintiff in order to proceed further with the suit to decide it on merits and pass the decree. Since it is a procedural defect, in a given case, if permitted by the Court the plaintiff may opt to withdraw from the suit and cure the defect by offering to issue a pre-suit statutory notice in writing in accordance with law and then to file a suit. Such permission if sought by the plaintiff may be appropriately considered by the civil Court when the objection is raised at preliminary stage of the suit. Section 9-A of CPC as applicable in State of Maharashtra which contemplate an objection at preliminary stage of the suit. 12. Such permission if sought by the plaintiff may be appropriately considered by the civil Court when the objection is raised at preliminary stage of the suit. Section 9-A of CPC as applicable in State of Maharashtra which contemplate an objection at preliminary stage of the suit. 12. Section 9A CPC reads thus: "Where at the hearing of application relating to interim relief in a suit, objection to jurisdiction is taken, such issue to be decided by the Court as a preliminary issue : (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Code or any other law for the time being in force, if, at the hearing of any application for granting or setting aside an order granting any interim relief, whether by way of stay, injunction, appointment of a receiver or otherwise, made in any suit, an objection to the jurisdiction of the Court to entertain such a suit is taken by any of the parties to the suit, the Court shall proceed to determine at the hearing of such application the issue as to the jurisdiction as a preliminary issue before granting or setting aside the order granting the interim relief. Any such application shall be heard and disposed of by the Court as expeditiously as possible and shall not in any case be adjourned to the hearing of the suit." 13. The trial judge is expected by Section 9A C.P. Code to take the earliest opportunity to dispose of the suit. Any application under section 9A CPC is required to be heard and disposed of by the Court as expeditiously as possible and cannot be adjourned to the date of hearing of the suit. Preliminary issue as to jurisdiction of the court to entertain the suit for want of pre-suit statutory notice is required to be decided by the Civil Court after giving full opportunity to the parties to lead evidence because finding on the preliminary issue framed may dispose of the suit. If the suit is capable of being disposed of on the issue of jurisdiction it should be so disposed in an expeditious manner according to law instead of allowing it to remain in docket for years together added to arrears. When the language of the provision is clear and unambiguous, it is duty of the Court to faithfully implement the mandate of the legislature. When the language of the provision is clear and unambiguous, it is duty of the Court to faithfully implement the mandate of the legislature. Considerations of hardship to the plaintiff are irrelevant in the absence of waiver of pre-suit statutory notice; waiver may be express or implied. But mere delay in raising objection as to the jurisdiction of the Court would not justify an inference of waiver. It is necessarily a question of inference to be drawn by Court based on the established facts and circumstances as to conduct of the defendant before and after the institution of the suit. To illustrate: A Municipal Corporation entitled to a pre-suit statutory notice otherwise; but threatens to immediately demolish a house or building constructed by the plaintiff, in such case of apprehended injury the plaintiff is not expected to wait until pre-suit statutory notice is issued and served as per statutory requirements of Section 527 of the Act as Municipal Corporation by its conduct is estopped from contending that pre-suit statutory notice was not given before the institution of the suit. This is example of preventive injunction in the nature of “quia timet” relief. The waiver of pre-suit statutory notice is implied only in such exceptional case where plaintiff may be required to rush urgently with a civil suit to the Court pleading extreme urgency to pray for injunction to protect his residence/house or building likely to be demolished highhandedly by the defendant. In Krishan Lal Vs State of J & K reported in (1994) 4 SCC 422 , Honourable Supreme Court observed thus:- “26. Let it now be seen whether the requirement of giving copy of the proceeding of the inquiry mandated by section 17(5) of the Act is one which is for the benefit of the individual concerned or serves a public purpose. If it be former, it is apparent, in view of the aforesaid legal position, that the same can be waived; if it be latter, it cannot be. Though Shri Mehta has urged that this requirement serves a public purpose, we do not agree. According to us, the requirement is for the benefit of the person concerned which is to enable him to know as to what had taken place during the course of the proceedings so that he is better situated to show his cause as to why the proposed penalty should not be imposed. According to us, the requirement is for the benefit of the person concerned which is to enable him to know as to what had taken place during the course of the proceedings so that he is better situated to show his cause as to why the proposed penalty should not be imposed. Such a requirement cannot be said to relatable to public policy or one concerned with public interest, or to serve a public purpose.” 14. The above observation by the Apex court clarify that, if the mandatory requirement of law is for the benefit of individual concerned it may be waived by that person but if it serves public purpose to protect a public authority, it can not be waived. Section 527 of the MMC Act, definitely related to public policy. It serves a public purpose to save the MCGM from avoidable, expensive and lengthy litigation. The provision was conceived in public interest to prohibit the prospective plaintiffs from filing the civil suit without issuance and service of the mandatory pre-suit statutory notice as prescribed under the law. The provision do not admit any exception on the ground of urgency or waiver as an excuse for the plaintiff-appellant's failure/avoidance to comply with the mandatory requirement. Thus when the language of the legal provision is clear and unambiguous, it is plain duty of the court to give effect to it and considerations of hardship will not be a legitimate ground for not to faithfully implement mandate of the legislature when it serves public purpose, except of course to save someone's residence/house only means of livelihood like shop from highhanded threatened prima facie illegal action by or on behalf of Municipal Corporation, as an interim preventive relief on humanitarian ground, subject to final decision in suit. 15. In the present case, the suit was instituted in February 2011. Learned Advocate for the MCGM had objected the suit on the ground of want of cause of action to file the suit. The suit no. 15. In the present case, the suit was instituted in February 2011. Learned Advocate for the MCGM had objected the suit on the ground of want of cause of action to file the suit. The suit no. 2332 of 2010 instituted earlier was pending in the City Civil Court on the ground that the stop work notice was given by the MCGM under Section 354-A of the MMC Act and an ad-interim protection was also obtained to protect the suit structure pending the suit, but without waiting for further decision in that suit or without amending the plaint the Plaintiff ventured to file another suit to obtain mandatory injunction against the MCGM to get the suit structure regularized. It is the same suit structure which is the subject matter of the suit instituted earlier. MCGM had asked to stop the construction work detected. It is case of the MCGM that the plaintiff under the shield of the ad-interim relief of injunction obtained in suit no. 2332 of 2010 went on to complete the unauthorized construction work and instituted fresh suit for mandatory injunction against the MCGM to regularize the suit construction, without issuance and service of the mandatory pre-suit statutory notice to the MCGM as required under Section 527 of the MMC Act. The suit was objected at its preliminary stage by or on behalf of the MCGM for want of the valid cause of action to file the suit. The plaintiff had remedy to amend the plaint in the suit no. 2332 of 2010 instituted earlier challenging the stop work notice, to inform the court that the plaintiff went on to complete the unauthorized construction and could have prayed for consequential relief of direction as to regularization in the pending suit itself in stead of resorting to multiplicity of suits. Thus there was no valid cause of action to institute the new suit in respect of the regularization of the same subject matter of the suit between the same parties, which was pending, without issuance and service of pre-suit statutory notice as required upon the MCGM. Therefore Learned City Civil Judge rightly observed from the record that it was abuse of the process of law. Therefore Learned City Civil Judge rightly observed from the record that it was abuse of the process of law. The facts indicate that the plaintiff went on to complete the construction despite notice under Section 354A of the MMC Act, under the shield of ad-interim order in the pending suit and innovated an idea of a new suit for mandatory injunction against the MCGM to get the suit structure regularized, that too without giving mandatory pre-suit statutory notice under Section 527 of the MMC Act. Prevention of multiplicity of the legal proceedings is policy of the law which prohibit the institution of the suit without issuance of pre-suit statutory notice mandatorily required to be issued and served in the manner as prescribed. Prior notice of the suit as required to be served legally give opportunity to the MCGM to know beforehand the full name and address of the prospective plaintiff and the grievance of the plaintiff and the cause of action and other particulars of the proposed civil suit. MCGM upon receipt of the statutory notice under Section 527 of the MMC Act can reconsider the legal position so as to make amendments or to settle the claim at pre-litigation stage. The provision of mandatory pre-suit statutory notice is intended to save precious public time and money, while it would also pin down the plaintiff to the stated cause of action of the proposed civil suit. Equitable considerations of hardship are out of place for implementing mandatory provisions of law which limit the time period for filing the civil suit. If any act of the MCGM is challenged as done in pursuance of the MMC Act, it is duty of the court to faithfully implement the mandate of the legislature to serve public purpose under section 527. In my opinion, no court can encourage the agreement to “waive” the mandatory legal requirements of pre-suit statutory notice which in clear terms prohibit the institution of the suit itself without the statutory compliance of pre-suit notice. Because such an agreement to “waive” something prohibited by law is one offending public policy and would be contrary to section 23 of the Indian Contract Act. Section 23. Because such an agreement to “waive” something prohibited by law is one offending public policy and would be contrary to section 23 of the Indian Contract Act. Section 23. reads thus :- What considerations and objects are lawful and what not.- The consideration or object of an agreement is lawful, unless - it is forbidden by law or is of such a nature that, if permitted, it would defeat the provisions of any law; or is fraudulent; or involves or implies injury to the person or property of another or; the Court regards it as immoral, or opposed to public policy. In each of these cases, the consideration or object of an agreement is said to be unlawful. Every agreement of which the object or consideration is unlawful is void. 16. The ruling in Vasant Ambadas (Supra) appears per incuriam in this regard. It, therefore, follows that waiver of the breach of the procedural mandate under Section 527 of the MMC Act would defeat the provision and policy of law which clearly serves public purpose to protect MCGM from avoidable litigations. 17. The new legislative policy under Section 515A of the MMC Act is to prevent institution of civil suits challenging notices issued by the MCGM requiring the notice to stop and remove the unauthorized, unlawful construction detected by the MCGM through its officials. Amended Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, 1888 (the MMC Act") and has come into effect from 22 March 2012. Noteworthy amendment to the MMC Act is the insertion of Section 515A which now bars the jurisdiction of civil courts to entertain any suit or any other legal proceeding against any notice issued, order passed or direction issued by the Designated Officer, under section 351 or 354A of the MMC Act. The text of the newly inserted Section 515A reads as under: 515A. Bar of jurisdiction. - Save as otherwise provided in this Act, any notice issued, order passed or direction issued by the Designated Officer, under section 351 or 354A shall not be questioned in any suit or other legal proceedings. 18. Division Bench of this Court upheld the constitutional validity of Section 515A of the MMC Act, vide its judgment dated 17th July 2013 in Writ Petition (L) NO.1709 OF 2013 in Abdul Razzaq Sunesra versus Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai and others, mainly for the following reasons: “1. 18. Division Bench of this Court upheld the constitutional validity of Section 515A of the MMC Act, vide its judgment dated 17th July 2013 in Writ Petition (L) NO.1709 OF 2013 in Abdul Razzaq Sunesra versus Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai and others, mainly for the following reasons: “1. The intention of the legislature is to prevent inordinately long delays that were occasioned in the taking of steps against illegal structures and constructions due to the pendency of suits before the civil courts. The legislature was entitled to take cognizance of these delays and to enact a suitable statutory provision and hence the same cannot be regarded as being arbitrary. 2. There is nothing uncommon in a competent legislature barring the jurisdiction of a civil court to entertain a civil suit of a specified nature. Adequacy or sufficiency of the remedies provided under the Act may be relevant but not decisive. 3. The absence of an appellate remedy against the decision of an administrative officer does not render a statutory provision unconstitutional.” 19. Division Bench of this Court held that Sections 351 and 354A of the MMC Act, contain adequate safeguards to ensure that the determination by the decision making authority is subject to the observance of statutory parameters. Without approaching the decision making authority on behalf of the MCGM and without inviting the reasoned and speaking order the tendency is to rush to the Civil Court; file a civil suit usually pleading made up or invented urgency for securing an order in the nature of ex parte injunction from the court for staying the implementation and execution of the notice or direction issued or the order passed by the Designated Officer. Thus the builder/developer/owner would continue to stultify the municipal action or action by the planning authority having insulated himself by an protection order granted at ad-interim or interim stage of the suit against the demolition of the constructions. The Supreme Court has repeatedly cautioned the State against the dangers of unauthorized construction and encroachments. With the introduction of section 515A in the MMC Act, access to the civil courts by civil suit is now barred except as otherwise provided under MMC Act. The Supreme Court has repeatedly cautioned the State against the dangers of unauthorized construction and encroachments. With the introduction of section 515A in the MMC Act, access to the civil courts by civil suit is now barred except as otherwise provided under MMC Act. But the litigant is not remediless as he can invoke writ jurisdiction of the High Court against such a notice, direction and/or order passed by the Designated Officer under Sections 351 or 354A of the MMC Act, because the Designated Officer i.e. decision making authority on behalf of the MCGM is duty bound to exercise its discretion judiciously and not arbitrarily. The Designated Officer is required to observe the principles of natural justice and pass a speaking order recording reasons considering the relevant material. Such decision is liable for scrutiny and challenge under Article 226 of Constitution of India. The legislative object of introducing Section 515A and Section 527 of the MMC Act is to ensure that recourse to normal long lasting remedy of civil suit is not utilized by an unscrupulous litigant with a view to abuse the process of law as would generally result in obvious procrastination for a planning authority to espouse the action against offending persons responsible for unauthorized constructions. The offending litigant would use every potential means to ensure that the inordinate delay occur in the disposal of the suit, once a stay or ad-interim injunction order is obtained. The suit lingers on for many years in Bombay City Civil Court and in upper courts due to mounting arrears of Civil suits. The legislative intention is to act as early as possible in public interest to ensure that the urgent, expeditious action is taken against unauthorized constructions to nip them in the bud. Carrying on and completing the construction without having obtained any sanctioned plan is construed as not only illegal but also continuing offence and an injunction order which in essence is equitable relief cannot be granted to perpetuate the illegality committed. Nobody is entitled to claim injunction as a matter of right or course to carry on and complete the unauthorized construction and then to apply for mandatory injunction against the MCGM to seek regularization of unauthorized construction. Nobody is entitled to claim injunction as a matter of right or course to carry on and complete the unauthorized construction and then to apply for mandatory injunction against the MCGM to seek regularization of unauthorized construction. The trial courts can and shall at the earliest opportunity non-suit the unscrupulous litigants in frivolous and unlawful claims, instead of adding the suits to the list of ongoing pendency of the suits lasting for years for paucity of adequate judges and want of time. Wrong-doer cannot be allowed to reap unfair advantages out of our current civil procedure and practices only in order to buy time for safeguarding and perpetuating illegality. Normal drawn out course of the civil suit is time consuming right from the date of the institution of the suit, various steps are required in the suits including filing written statement, discovery, inspection of documents, admissions and denials of documents, framing issues, recording of evidence etc. till the final decision by pronouncement of judgment; Precious judicial time and Tax payer's hard earned public money are primarily meant for the prima facie bonafide litigants allowed to pursue normal course of the suits to get justice according to law, but not for frivolous, opportunist litigants indulging in illegalities, misusing and abusing the long drawn out process of law. 20. Under these circumstances, it is contended on behalf of the MCGM that in this case considering the want of any urgency to institute the suit in the present case, pre-suit statutory notice as mandatorily required under section 527 of the MMC Act was necessary before institution of the suit. This express submission also overrules the possibility of “waiver” by the party for whose benefit Section 527 of the MMC Act was introduced assuming for the sake of argument that waiver is permissible. This express submission also overrules the possibility of “waiver” by the party for whose benefit Section 527 of the MMC Act was introduced assuming for the sake of argument that waiver is permissible. An useful reference can also be made to the ruling in AIR 1984 SC 1043 , in the case of Bihari Chowdhary and another vs. State of Bihar and others, wherein it has been held that a suit against the Government or a public officer to which the requirement of a prior notice under Sec. 80 CPC is attracted cannot be validly instituted until the expiration of the period of two months next after the notice in writing concerned in the manner prescribed for in the section and if filed before the expiry of the said period, the suit has to be dismissed as not maintainable. Under Order VII, Rule 11 (d) of the Code of Civil Procedure if upon meaningful reading of the plaint the Court is satisfied that the suit is barred under any law then it has power to non-suit the plaintiff-appellants irrespective of any plea made in the written statement if Such a conclusion is drawn from the averments made in the plaint itself. Under Order VII Rule 11, the plaint can be rejected. The relevant provision reads thus:- O. 7. R.11. Rejection of plaint The plaint shall be rejected in the following cases: (a) Where it does not disclose a cause of action: (b) Where the relief claimed is undervalued, and the plaintiff, on being required by the Court to correct the valuation within a time to be fixed by the Court, fails to do so : (c) Where the relief claimed is properly valued, but the plaint is written upon paper insufficiently stamped, and the plaintiff, on being required by the Court to supply the requisite stamp-paper within a time to be fixed by the Court, fails to do so : (d) Where the suit appears from the statement in the plaint to be barred by any law: (e) where it is not filed in duplicate : (f) where the plaintiff fails to comply with the provisions of rule 9. Provided that the time fixed by the Court for the correction of the valuation or supplying of the requisite Stamp-papers shall not be extended unless the Court, for reasons to be recorded, is satisfied that the plaintiff was prevented by any cause of an exceptional nature from correcting the valuation or supplying the requisite stamp-papers, as the case may be, within the time fixed by the Court and that refusal to extend such time would cause grave injustice to the plaintiff. 21. In the case in hand there were reasons for the court to consider the suit as barred by law and also that it did not disclose the valid cause of action to institute the suit. The court has power to reject the plaint at any stage of the suit for any of the reasons mentioned above. If by reading the averments in the plaint, the court is satisfied that the suit is without valid cause of action or if it is barred by law, the court is not obliged to consider the pleas in the written statement for passing an order rejecting the plaint. Order VII Rule 7 Civil procedure Code enable the Court to exercise power to non-suit the plaintiff and reject the plaint finding that the suit was barred by any provision of law. In the ruling in Sadu Vithal Vs Bombay Municipal Corporation reported in 1986 (3) Bom. C. R. 628, this Court had observed thus:- “5. It is true that the suit was not fixed for hearing or for deciding any issue about maintainability of the suit, but the suit appeared, from the statements in the plaint itself, to be barred by the provisions contained in section 527 and hence the learned trial Judge was competent to reject the plaint under Order 7, Rule 11. It is well settled that this rule can be applied at any stage of the suit and hence the order dismissing the suit cannot be styled as illegal merely because the suit was not fixed for hearing or for determination of the issue of maintainability. 6. It is well settled that this rule can be applied at any stage of the suit and hence the order dismissing the suit cannot be styled as illegal merely because the suit was not fixed for hearing or for determination of the issue of maintainability. 6. Moreover, as rightly urged by Shri Trivedi the absence of notice under section 527 relates to the jurisdiction of the trial Court to entertain and try the suit and hence the learned trial Judge was bound to dismiss the suit once he came to the conclusion that no notice under section 527 was given by the appellant before filing the suit. In support of his contention Shri Carlos placed reliance on the decision of the Full Bench in Vasant Ambadas v. Bombay Municipality. No doubt the question involved in that matter was whether the procedural requirement of giving a notice under section 527 of the Bombay Municipal Corporation Act can be waived or not. But the learned Judges proceeded to consider that question on the premise that no suit can be instituted without service of notice if such service of notice is required statutorily as a condition precedent to the exercise of jurisdiction, and proceeded to lay down that the procedural requirement of giving such a notice can be waived and on such waiver the Court gets jurisdiction to entertain and try the suit. As rightly held by the learned trial Judge no valid notice under section 527 of the Bombay Municipal Corporation Act was given by the appellant before filing the suit and hence the trial Court had no jurisdiction to entertain and try the suit, which was rightly dismissed. As the suit, itself was dismissed no question of granting temporary injunction arose.” 22. The mandate under Section 527 of the MMC Act is clear and undeniable creating prohibition for the institution of the civil suit without compliance of conditions precedents stated therein. The civil suit cannot be entertained against the MCGM or its officials for performing their duty in good faith, unless the conditions precedents are complied with by the prospective plaintiff before the institution of the civil suit. 23. The civil suit cannot be entertained against the MCGM or its officials for performing their duty in good faith, unless the conditions precedents are complied with by the prospective plaintiff before the institution of the civil suit. 23. In these days trial courts are heavily burdened by huge dockets of pending suits, there is nothing wrong if the trial judge at the earliest possible opportunity on meaningful reading of the plaint record his satisfaction that the suit can not be entertained as it is barred by law and reject the plaint. Larger public interest would require the court to free itself from the heavy burden of dockets of the plaints lodged which are prima facie contrary to law, sometimes ill-motivated attempt only to buy time for sustaining illegality for lifetime of the suit. 24. When constitutionality of the Amendment introduced under Section 515 A of the MMC Act was challenged and it is upheld by this Court by the ruling of Division Bench of this Court in W.P. (L) 1709 of 2013 dated 17-07-2013 in Abdul Razzaq sunesra Vs MCGM and others this court have left the litigant to avail of the remedy of invoking writ jurisdiction under article 226 of the Constitution of India when the civil suit is barred by law. In the same manner, if the civil suit cannot be filed/instituted without the issuance and service of the pre-suit statutory notice as mandatorily required under section 527 of the MMC Act, the plaintiff should avail of the remedy under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India. Thus plaintiff-appellant is not rendered remediless even if civil suit is rejected as barred by law by the court below. 25. Recently in the ruling of Abdul Karim Ahmed Mansoori vs. The Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai and another, in Writ Petition (Lodging) No.2237 of 2013, a writ petition was filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in order to challenge the notice issued under Section 354A of the Mumbai Municipal Act, 1988. 25. Recently in the ruling of Abdul Karim Ahmed Mansoori vs. The Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai and another, in Writ Petition (Lodging) No.2237 of 2013, a writ petition was filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in order to challenge the notice issued under Section 354A of the Mumbai Municipal Act, 1988. A Division Bench of this court after considering the ruling in Secretary of State V/s. Mask & Company, reported in AIR 1943 P.C. 105, and the ruling in Shiv Kumar Chadha V/s. Municipal Corporation of Delhi reported in 1993 (3) SCC 161 , as also Dhulabhai and Others V/s. State of Madhya Pradesh and Another reported in AIR 1969 S.C. 78 , and Commissioner, Akola Municipal Corporation V/s. Bhalchandra S.P Govind Mahashabde reported in 2013(4) Mh.L.J.45, considered the consistent trend and opinion of the courts which leans in favour of entertaining a civil suit subject to legal bar so as to apply the legal bar as and when invoked. Division Bench expressed its view thus : “It is not as if by our clarification and enabling parties to file a Civil Suit, that we have observed that the bar should be ignored or should not be taken note of. The Civil Court is obliged to take note of the provision and the statutory bar whenever that plea is raised by the Corporation before it. In such circumstances, no further clarification is needed. All that we state and observe is that we have not expressed any opinion on the rival contentions including on the point of jurisdiction of the Civil Court in this matter. In such circumstances, no further clarification is needed. All that we state and observe is that we have not expressed any opinion on the rival contentions including on the point of jurisdiction of the Civil Court in this matter. Even if the Petitioner seeks to revive the Suit as it is still pending and seek interim relief therein, the Corporation can raise the plea of jurisdiction and the learned Judge should consider and decide in accordance with law.” To sum up discussion therefore, there cannot be a blanket bar for plaintiff to file a civil suit but the plaintiff do incur risk by approaching the civil court particularly when there is express or implied bar by any law because it is open for the civil court before entertaining the suit to go through averments in the plaint and if upon meaningful reading of the plaint, the court finds that there is legal bar to entertain the suit, it may reject the plaint irrespective of any contention on behalf of the defendant, who may have been served. Alternatively, if defendant has appeared before the court and raised a preliminary issue as to jurisdiction of the court to entertain the suit, in view of the legal bar, civil court shall try the preliminary issue and decide the same, in view of Section 9A of the Code of Civil Procedure, as applicable in State of Maharashtra. In case the plaintiff's civil suit is not entertained or dismissed in liminen or for any reason as above, then even appeal may not be entertained and ultimately due to legal bar to the suit, the plaintiff will have to invoke writ jurisdiction available under Article 226 of Constitution of India. 26. In my opinion, a citizen can lodge his civic complaint to the ward officer or the complaint authority concerned of the MCGM. Furthermore, according to law, the building has to be constructed in accordance with the sanctioned plan. Since building construction or development is in substance an immensely technical and specialized branch of the Municipal Corporation as planning authority, MCGM is adequately invested with statutory powers to grant, revoke or cancel building permissions, to stop illegal constructions and/or to remove it and under the statutory obligation to prosecute the offenders, to enforce the provisions of the MMC Act, Rules, Bye laws, D.C. Regulations, policy decisions and circulars etc. When grievances are allowed to be made by citizens, the MCGM may prevent plethora of avoidable suits if it sets up a “Grievance Redressal Forum” in public interest at its principal office for its tax payers to approach it so that many grievances of prospective litigants/Plaintiffs can be settled and remedied amicably on merits and in accordance with law at pre-litigation stage itself. This forum need to be established for benefit of prospective litigants when civil suits are now sought to be prevented by a legal bar. I am sure it would save the MCGM of lot of expenditure and precious time spent by it to pursue suits in courts. Of course any aggrieved or dissatisfied citizen may then invoke Writ jurisdiction to compel Municipal Corporation to perform its statutory obligation if grievance remains unredressed despite complaint made to the ward officer or the decision making authority concerned designated to decide grievances by the rate payers on behalf of the MCGM. 27. In sequel to legal position stated and discussion as above, following order is passed. ORDER The impugned order of dismissal of the Notice of Motion and the civil suit is sustainable according to law and cannot be blamed. The Civil application 2797 of 2011 and the appeal is found without merits. Both are dismissed with costs. Copy of this Judgment and order be sent to the Director of the Municipal Administration, State of Maharashtra and to the Municipal Commissioner and Principal Secretary, Law and Judiciary Department in the State of Maharashtra for their information and necessary action.