A.N.Varma, J. - (1.) These two Revisions are being disposed of by a common order as the question involved in both the Revisions is identical. The Revisions are directed against orders passed by the court below disposing of a preliminary issue, the issue being whether the court has jurisdiction to try the suit.
(2.) Briefly stated the relevant facts are these. Plaintiff-opposite-parties have filed two suits for an injunction restraining the defendant-applicant from demolishing certain constructions made by the plaintiff-opposite-parties on the ground that the notice issued by the defendant-applicant for demolition of the construction, is null and void. The plaintiff-opposite-parties filed the two suits on the assertion that the disputed construction had been made by the plaintiff-opposite-parties in accordance with the provisions of sub-section (6) of Section 181 of the Cantonments Act, 1924, and that the Board having neglected and omitted for more than one month after receipt of a valid notice given by the plaintiff-opposite-parties to the Board under Section 179 of the aforesaid Act to pass any order sanctioning or refusing to sanction the proposed construction, it would be deemed to have given the sanction to the erection of the building unconditionally under subsection (6) of Section 181, and consequently, the construction of the building in question was perfectly lawful. That being so, the Board had no power to give any notice under Section 185 of the aforesaid Act and the notice impugned by the suits is a complete nullity. On these assertions, the plaintiff-opposite-parties prayed for the relief of injunction restraining the Board from demolishing the construction.
(3.) The applicant Board filed a written statement and alleged that the plaintiff having filed an appeal against the impugned notice to the appropriate authority and the said authority having dismissed the appeal of the plaintiff-opposite-parties, the order passed by the appellate authority became final under Section 278 of the aforesaid Act, and consequently, the suits were barred by the provision of Section 278. In both the suits, a preliminary issue was framed to the effect whether the suit was barred by Section 278 of the Cantonments Board Act, 1924. The court below has answered the issue in favour of the plaintiffs-opposite-parties and against the defendant-applicant and hence the Revision.;