Prior pursuit of identical relief in civil proceedings warranted no revisional interference absent jurisdictional error.

The applicant, a temple sarwarakar, alleged that respondent No. 1 had reconstructed his house without municipal permission and obstructed a door and passage connecting the temple to the main road.

The applicant sought removal of the construction under Section 307(5) of the Chhattisgarh Municipal Corporation Act, 1956, alleging that the Municipal Corporation had not taken effective action despite issuing notices.

Respondent No. 1 denied the obstruction and asserted that permission was deemed granted; the Corporation stated that it would take action in accordance with law.

The trial court dismissed the application. It noted that the applicant had also pursued civil proceedings for substantially the same relief, and that an appeal from the dismissal of a later civil suit was pending when the application was decided.

The applicant challenged the dismissal in revision.

1. Whether the trial court’s dismissal of the application under Section 307(5) of the Act of 1956 disclosed a jurisdictional error or material illegality warranting interference under Section 115 CPC.

2. Whether the applicant’s prior pursuit of substantially the same relief through civil proceedings, and the trial court’s view that he should approach the Corporation’s appellate committee, justified dismissal of the Section 307(5) application.

Section 307(5) of the Chhattisgarh Municipal Corporation Act, 1956 was the provision under which the applicant sought relief concerning the alleged unauthorised construction.

The revision was also brought under Section 115 CPC, and the Court considered whether the impugned order suffered from jurisdictional error or material illegality sufficient to warrant revisional interference.

The Court noted the trial court’s view that the applicant ought to have approached the competent appellate committee of the Municipal Corporation.

The applicant relied on The Nagar Palika Nigam Bilaspur v. Ram Sahay Verma, Civil Revision No. 132 of 2015, decided on 24 June 2016; however, the judgment does not discuss that authority further.

The Court considered the procedural history, including the applicant’s pursuit of civil proceedings seeking substantially the same relief and the trial court’s observation that the Corporation’s appellate committee was the appropriate forum.

In light of those circumstances, it found no sufficient basis to conclude that the trial court’s dismissal involved jurisdictional error or material illegality.

The Court therefore declined to interfere in revision, without separately determining whether the construction was unauthorised or obstructed the passage.

The civil revision was dismissed, leaving the trial court’s dismissal of the Section 307(5) application undisturbed.