JUDGMENT : Sureshwar Thakur, J. The defendant/petitioner initiated proceedings under Section 253 of the Municipal Corporation Act, against the respondent/plaintiff, given the latter allegedly unauthorizedly raising construction, as detailed in the plaint. During the pendency of the suit, the plaintiff instituted an application before the learned trial Court, for, ad-interim restraining the defendant/petitioner, herein, from holding further statutory proceedings, against, the plaintiff/respondent. The learned trial Court granted relief to the respondent/plaintiff. The defendant/petitioner, being aggrieved therefrom, preferred an appeal before the learned appellate Court. The latter Court dismissed the defendant’s appeal, whereas, it affirmed the verdict, pronounced by the learned trial Court. The defendant, being aggrieved by the concurrent orders pronounced upon the plaintiff’s application, cast under the provisions of Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 CPC, has hence approached this Court. 2. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has contended with vigor, that, with Sub-Section (4), of Section 253 of the Municipal Corporation Act, provisions whereof are extracted hereinafter: “Save as provided in this section no Court shall entertain any suit, application or other proceedings for injunction or other relief against the Commissioner or restrain him from taking any action or making any order in pursuance of the provisions of this Section.” rather contemplating a complete statutory fetter, and, bar against entertainment, of suits’ or initiation of proceedings, for injunction or other relief, against the Commissioner or for restraining him, from, taking any action or making any order, within the ambit, of, the apposite statutory jurisdiction, bestowed upon him (i) hence the entertainment of the plaintiff’s suit by the learned trial Court, and also concurrent orders of injunction pronounced, on an application cast, by the plaintiff/respondent, before the Courts below, being hence devoid of jurisdiction. He contends, that, on the aforesaid solitary score, the instant petition be allowed by this Court, and, the apposite concurrent pronouncement (s), be reversed and set aside, given theirs falling beyond the jurisdictional competence, of both the learned Courts below. 3. The aforesaid submission, as addressed before this Court, has not been anvilled, upon, the petitioner herein, tendering before the learned Courts below, the apposite notice, in pursuance whereof, the learned Commissioner, initiated statutory proceedings, against, the petitioner herein. 3. The aforesaid submission, as addressed before this Court, has not been anvilled, upon, the petitioner herein, tendering before the learned Courts below, the apposite notice, in pursuance whereof, the learned Commissioner, initiated statutory proceedings, against, the petitioner herein. Further more, both the learned Courts below hence, had no opportunity, to therefrom, gauge (i) whether the work/construction, carried by the plaintiff, falling within or falling outside the domain, of Section 253 of the Municipal Corporation Act, (ii) nor both the learned Courts below, had any opportunity to gather, whether, the purported unauthorized works, carried by the plaintiff, falling within the definition of “building”, borne in sub-Section (3) of Section 253, of the Act. The aforesaid relevant omission (s), of, by the counsel for Commissioner, obviously constrained, both, the learned Courts below to proceed to hold that prima-facie, the relevant work/construction, falling within or falling outside the statutory domain, of the learned Commissioner, (i) and in absence thereof, thereupon both the learned Courts below, hence assuming jurisdiction upon the lis, obviously they cannot be construed to either exceed jurisdiction vested in them or to exercise jurisdiction beyond the mandate, of law. 4. Be that as it may, also, there occurs no discussion, in the concurrent orders, recorded by both the Courts below, qua the aforesaid submission (s) addressed only before this Court, that, the purported unauthorized construction, raised by the respondent/plaintiff, squarely falling within the domain, of, the statutory definition of “building”, hence launching of proceedings, against the plaintiff/respondent, also falling within the purview of, the Municipal Corporation Act, and, besides, hence the statutory bar, constituted, in sub-Section (3) of Section 253 of the Act, being squarely attractable, against, the institution of the suit, by the plaintiff. Since the aforesaid argument neither came to be addressed nor adjudicated upon by the learned Courts below, and, no material in consonance therewith exists, before the Courts below, (i) thereupon, it is deemed fit, to, only for the aforesaid reasons, allow the instant petition, and remand CMA No. 56-6 of 2016, to the learned trial Court, to, enable it to, upon an appropriate application being instituted before it, by the counsel for the Commissioner, accompanied by the relevant documents, in respect whereof the apposite leave, for, their adduction, hence is asked for, and, to be granted, in accordance with law, by the learned trial Court, thereafter, its upon applying its mind, vis-à-vis the material placed before it, hence make a fresh adjudication, in accordance with law, upon CMA No. 56-6 of 2016. 5. Consequently, the instant petition is disposed of. Till a fresh adjudication is most expeditiously made, by the learned Court (s) below upon CMA No. 56-6 of 2016, the parties are directed to maintain status quo, with respect to the purported unauthorized construction. All pending application (s), if any are also disposed of. No costs.