Judgment : 1. Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority, which figured as the defendant before the trial Court in O.S.No.1895 of 1995, is the appellant in the present second appeal. The respondent herein is one of the co-owners of the suit property, namely the property bearing Door No.756, Anna Salai, Chennai. The respondent along with the other co-owners got planning permission for constructing a building with three floors. Subsequently, building permit for putting the 4th floor was sought for, but the same was declined. As against the order declining permission to put up the fourth floor, an appeal came to be preferred, as per the plaint averments, under Section 79 of the Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Act. In the meantime, without permission, the additional floors had also been constructed. 2. The appellant (CMDA) issued a notice dated 13.06.1989 directing the owners of the property to demolish the unauthorized construction. As against the said notice, the land owners filed a suit in O.S.No.6537 of 1989 for an injunction not to take further action based on the said notice directing demolition and removal of unauthorized construction. However, the plaintiff did not pursue the remedy sought for in the said suit and allowed it to be dismissed. On the other hand, the respondent herein/plaintiff approached CMDA authorities for regularisation of the unauthorized construction. Meanwhile, a notice under Section 56 (2)(iii) of the Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Act, 1971 dated 27.02.1995 came to be served on 13.03.1995 on the tenants informing them to vacate the premises within seven days as the building was going to be demolished. Challenging the said notice and praying for a decree declaring the said notice issued by the appellant/defendant under Letter No.ES4/4215/95 dated 27.02.1995 was null and void and for a consequential permanent injunction restraining the appellant herein, its officials or anybody acting under the appellant/defendant from in anyway proceeding with the said impugned notice dated 27.02.1995, the present suit O.S.No. 1895 of 1995 came to be filed. 3. The suit was resisted by the appellant/defendant contending that the suit was barred by a statutory provision, namely Section 101 of the Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Act, 1971 and that the said Act also provided a bar for granting any injunction against the exercise of the statutory powers conferred on the authorities under the Act. 3. The suit was resisted by the appellant/defendant contending that the suit was barred by a statutory provision, namely Section 101 of the Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Act, 1971 and that the said Act also provided a bar for granting any injunction against the exercise of the statutory powers conferred on the authorities under the Act. On merits, it was contended that the approved plan contained only the basement floor, ground floor plus three flours and without obtaining planning permission, 4th and 5th floors came to be constructed together with a machine room in the 6th floor; that the permission sought for to construct the 4th and 5th floors had been refused under Letter No.C/4825/83 dated 21.04.1988 and that therefore CMDA had to take steps for the removal of the unauthorized construction for which alone the impugned notice came to be issued. 4. The learned trial Judge framed the following issues: 1) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief of injunction? 2) To what other relief? 5. In the trial that was conducted before the trial Court, PW1 was examined and Exs.A1 and A2 were marked on the side of the plaintiffs, whereas DW1 alone was examined without producing any document on the side of the defendant. 6. At the conclusion of trial, the learned trial Judge answered the issues in favour of the respondent herein/plaintiff and decreed the suit as prayed for without costs by his judgment and decree dated 03.09.1998. The appeal preferred by the CMDA, namely the appellant herein before the lower appellate Court, namely Additional District and Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court III), Chennai in A.S.No.336 of 2002 was dismissed by its judgment and decree dated 31.10.2003 confirming the decree passed by the trial Court. As against the said decree of the Appellate Court, viz., learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, (Fast Track Court III), Chennai, the present second appeal has been filed by the CMDA, the appellant herein on various grounds set out in the memorandum of grounds of second appeal. 7. The arguments advanced by Mr.C.Johnson, learned counsel for the appellant and by Mr.R.Mohan, learned counsel for the respondent are heard. The materials available on record are also perused. 8. 7. The arguments advanced by Mr.C.Johnson, learned counsel for the appellant and by Mr.R.Mohan, learned counsel for the respondent are heard. The materials available on record are also perused. 8. As an appeal against the appellate decree of the Court Subordinate to the High Court shall lie to the High Court only on a substantial question of law, as mandated in Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, at the time of admission, this Court framed the following to be the substantial question of law involved in the second appeal: “Whether the Courts below are right in entertaining the suit and decreeing the same in spite of the Civil Courts' jurisdiction being barred under Section 101 of the Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Act, 1971?” 9. The learned counsel appearing for the parties in the second appeal admitted the limited scope of the Second Appeal and conceded that the Second Appeal can be disposed of on the short point “whether the Civil suit against the demolition notice stands barred by the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Act, 1971?” 10. It is not in dispute that the respondent/plaintiff is one of the co-owners of the suit property, namely the land and building bearing Door No.756, Anna Salai, Chennai comprised in T.S.No.27 of 2010, Block No.4, Nungambakkam, Chennai. It is also not in dispute that the co-owners applied for a planning permission and obtained planning permission for construction of basement floor, ground floor and three more floors. However, the land owners put up two additional floors, namely 4th and 5th floors and also a 6th floor containing motor room. The construction of 4th, 5th and 6th floors are admittedly unauthorized as no planning permission was obtained before putting up the said additional floors. However, it transpires that the land owners applied for planning permission for the construction 4th floor alone as found in the averment contained in paragraph 3 of the plaint and the same was also declined. The respondent and the other co-owners unmindful of the outcome of their application for planning permission, proceeded with the construction of not only the 4th floor, but also the 5th floor and 6th floors, which prompted the CMDA/appellant authorities to issue a demolition notice dated 13.06.1989 under Letter No. ECD 8256 of 1987. The respondent and the other co-owners unmindful of the outcome of their application for planning permission, proceeded with the construction of not only the 4th floor, but also the 5th floor and 6th floors, which prompted the CMDA/appellant authorities to issue a demolition notice dated 13.06.1989 under Letter No. ECD 8256 of 1987. The said demolition notice was preceded by a stop work notice bearing Letter No.34 dated 13.04.1989. On receipt of the said notice, the respondent herein/plaintiff along with the other co-owners chose to file a suit in O.S.No.6537 of 1989 on the file of the City Civil Court, Chennai, challenging the said demolition notice stating that an appeal under Section 79 of the Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Act, 1971 had been filed and before the disposal of the same, no further proceedings should be taken pursuant to the demolition notice. Admittedly, the said suit was not proceeded with and it was allowed to be dismissed for non-prosecution. The appeal preferred under Section 79 of the Act was also rejected by the Government by its order dated 10.05.1990. Only thereafter, the present notice impugned in the suit came to be issued to the occupants of the property. As against the same, the respondent/plaintiff chose to approach the Civil Court by the present suit O.S.No.1895 of 1995 on the premise that even after the dismissal of the appeal he was permitted to move for regularisation of the unauthorized construction. The undisputed facts are narrated above to give a clear picture of the circumstances under which the present suit came to be filed. 11. The first and foremost contention of the appellant is that the Civil Court's jurisdiction stands barred under Section 101 of the Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Act, 1971. Section 101 of the Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Act, 1971 reads as follows: “101. Bar of jurisdiction of Courts.- Any decision or order of the Tribunal or the Government or the planning authority or other authority or of any officer under this Act shall, subject to any appeal or revision or review provided under this Act, be final and shall not be liable to be questioned in any Court of law. Bar of jurisdiction of Courts.- Any decision or order of the Tribunal or the Government or the planning authority or other authority or of any officer under this Act shall, subject to any appeal or revision or review provided under this Act, be final and shall not be liable to be questioned in any Court of law. [and no injunction shall be granted by any court against the notices served to any person by the planning authority under section 56 or under section 57 of the Act.]” Pointing out the said provision, learned counsel for the appellant submits that both the Courts below failed to consider the scope of the said provision which resulted in an erroneous decision that the respondent herein/plaintiff was entitled to the relief of declaration and injunction as prayed for. The learned counsel for the respondent/plaintiff has made a meek attempt to contend that the language used in the Section would show that the bar provided therein would apply only to the orders which are subject to appeal or revision or review and that only the orders passed in any appeal, revision or review alone have been given finality under the said provision and not the order of the original authority and therefore, the bar provided under Section 101 does not get attracted to the case on hand. 13. This Court is at a loss to understand the logic in the above said contention raised by the learned counsel for the respondent/plaintiff. The section makes any order of the Government, Tribunal, Planning Authority, other Authority or any Officer under this Act as a final one, which shall be only subject to any appeal, revision or review in accordance with the provisions of the Act and such orders or decision of the authorities shall not be questioned in any Civil Court. The original Section did not contain the later part which makes it specific that no injunction shall be granted by any Court against the notices served under Section 56 or 57 of the Act. Perhaps, in view of the possibility of such a stand that would have been taken earlier, the Government thought it fit to bring about an amendment in the Section by making it specific that no injunction shall be granted by any Court against the notice issued under Sections 56 or 57 of the Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Act, 1971. When such a clear and unambiguous provision is there in the statute, neither the trial Court nor the Appellate Court adverted to the said provision in proper perspective. In fact, the learned trial Judge did not even frame an issue as to whether the suit is barred by Section 101 of the Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Act, 1971 even though the pivotal issue raised by the appellant/defendant was bar provided under the above said Section. The learned lower Appellate Judge also committed the very same mistake in not framing a specific point for determination as to the bar provided under Section 101 of the Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Act, 1971 even though the challenge made to the decree was solely based on such a contention. The learned lower appellate Judge simply framed two points for consideration, which shows non-application of mind. The two points formulated by the lower appellate Judge were 1) Whether the appeal could be allowed? and 2) what was the relief to which the appellant herein was entitled? 14. Time and again this Court deprecated the practice of avoiding framing of necessary points for determination in the appeal by the appellate Court and simply framing a point whether the Appeal could be allowed and the decree could be sustained. However, the learned lower Appellate Judge chose to deal with the question and held that the bar under Section 101 did not get attracted to the case on hand on the sole ground that the appeal filed against the rejection of the planning permission for the construction of 4th and 5th floors were pending disposal and hence the suit challenging the demolition notice and the notice issued to the occupants for vacating and for an injunction not to take further proceedings on the basis of the said notice was maintainable and it would fall outside the purview of Section 101. The above said interpretation cannot be accepted for the simple reason that the said Section is very clear that the notices cannot be challenged in any Court and that no injunction can be granted against the notices issued under Section 56 and 57 of the Act. The above said interpretation cannot be accepted for the simple reason that the said Section is very clear that the notices cannot be challenged in any Court and that no injunction can be granted against the notices issued under Section 56 and 57 of the Act. Yet another attempt is made by the learned counsel for the respondent to contend that the bar for granting injunction against the notice would get attracted only from 10.12.2008 when the later part of the said Section was introduced by way of amendment and that hence, the suit concerned in this appeal which was filed much earlier was very much maintainable. This Court is not in a position to accept the above said contention of the learned counsel for the respondent / plaintiff because the amendment as stated supra is only clarificatory in nature and not a new clause introduced. In S.Sathishkumar Vs. Member Secretary, Madras Metropolitan Development Authority, Chennai reported in (2008) 6 MLJ 1109 , a learned single Judge of this Court has held that the suit against such notices shall not be maintainable as it is barred by Section 101 of the Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Act, 1971. Hence the point raised in the substantial question of law is one covered by the said judmgent and I see no reason to differ from the view. 15. Forall the reasons stated above, this Court comes to the conclusion that the substantial question of law involved in this case indicated above is bound to be answered in the negative holding that both the Courts below committed error in upholding the maintainability of the suit despite the bar provided under Section 101 of the Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Act, 1971 and that the appeal is bound to succeed. Accordingly, the second appeal is allowed and the decree of the trial Court which was confirmed by the lower appellate Court is set aside and the suit in O.S.No. 1895 of 1995 shall stand dismissed. No costs.