Mere Allegation of Bad Faith Not Enough—Civil Courts Can’t Entertain Demolition Challenges Without Plea of Nullity: Bombay High Court Applies Strict Bar Under Section 433A MMC Act

“Plaint cleverly disguised as possession suit but was a frontal challenge to demolition notices—without pleading nullity, no civil jurisdiction survives,” In a major ruling with implications for urban development litigation and unauthorized construction cases, the Bombay High Court has held that civil courts cannot entertain suits that seek to restrain demolition under municipal law unless the challenge specifically pleads and demonstrates that the statutory action is a nullity, made in bad faith, or an abuse of power.

Justice Sandeep V. Marne quashed the Trial Court’s refusal to reject a civil suit filed against demolition notices issued under Sections 260 and 478 of the Maharashtra Municipal Corporations Act, 1949, and held that the suit was barred under Section 433A of the Act.

“The Trial Court grossly erred in failing to apply the strict test under Order VII Rule 11. The plaint was a direct challenge to notices issued by the Nashik Municipal Corporation and did not contain a single specific plea of nullity or bad faith,” the Court observed.

Setting aside the lower court’s order and rejecting the plaint at the threshold, the High Court directed that “status quo” protection would continue for four weeks to allow the respondents to appeal.

“Bar Under Section 433A Is Mandatory—Civil Court’s Power Is Circumscribed Unless Nullity Is Pleaded”

The core legal issue was whether a civil court could entertain a suit that, while framed as a declaration and injunction action, was in substance a challenge to demolition notices issued under the MMC Act. The High Court held that the plaintiff’s suit was a plain attempt to restrain demolition based on notices dated 12 December 2014 and 30 January 2015—actions that are protected under the statutory bar of Section 433A.

Justice Marne noted: “Seeking mere declarations that the Corporation has no authority to demolish a structure, without laying any legal foundation of nullity or abuse of process, does not escape the bar. Pleadings must contain ‘material facts’—not vague assertions.”

The Court reinforced that while civil courts retain limited jurisdiction, such jurisdiction exists only where the impugned action is ex-facie illegal, made in bad faith, or is a nullity—and those elements must be pleaded with clarity and specificity.

“The plaintiff’s entire suit was built upon the demolition notice. There was no allegation that the officer lacked authority, that notice was ultra vires, or issued by abuse of process. Without such averments, the bar under Section 433A squarely applies.”

“Possession Disputes Cannot Mask Demolition Challenges—Litigants Must Not Misuse Court Process to Stall Lawful Action”

The case concerned a structure allegedly expanded by the plaintiff without municipal approval, which led to issuance of demolition notices. The plaintiff claimed tenancy over a shop structure and sought declaratory relief that the notices were illegal.

However, the Court found that the suit was a strategic attempt to delay action against an illegal extension, noting:

“Documents showed that the structure grew from a 15 sq. m. tin shed to a 50.88 sq. m. ground-plus-two structure. There is nothing on record to show any development permission was obtained. This is a classic misuse of civil litigation to delay enforcement.”

Justice Marne further remarked:“The cause of action in the plaint, read holistically, arose solely from the issuance of statutory notices. Assertions of tenancy or history of use were only introduced to camouflage the true nature of the challenge.”

“Trial Courts Must Apply Order VII Rule 11 Rigorously—Substantive Legal Bar Cannot Be Circumvented by Clever Drafting”

Strongly criticising the Trial Court’s handling of the suit, the High Court observed that it had “expanded the scope of enquiry far beyond what Order VII Rule 11 permits”, by going into merits and even referring to the written statement.

“The plaint should have been tested on its face. Courts are duty-bound to apply a ‘meaningful reading’ standard—not superficial analysis. Framing preliminary issues and delving into the merits was plainly impermissible,” the judgment stated.

Justice Marne highlighted that Order VII Rule 11 exists to prevent burdening the civil docket with suits that are barred by law, and failing to enforce it encourages forum shopping.

“Suit like the present one, filed under the guise of protecting possession but aiming to stall demolition, must be nipped in the bud. Order VII Rule 11 is not a discretionary tool—it is a judicial duty.”

“Bar of Jurisdiction is Not Absolute—But Exceptions Must Be Pleaded and Proved”

While reaffirming the limited window for judicial scrutiny in cases involving statutory demolition action, the Court clarified that civil suits can be entertained in exceptional circumstances.

Citing the authoritative precedents of Akola Municipal Corporation v. Bhalchandra and Western Refrigeration Engineering v. State of Maharashtra, the Court held:

“Only where the plaintiff pleads that the notice is a nullity, the officer lacked authority, or acted in fraud or bad faith, does the bar lift. But in this case, there was no such plea—only bald allegations without legal substance.”

Justice Marne also invoked the Supreme Court’s ruling in Shiv Kumar Chadha v. MCD, which held that:

“Suit is maintainable only if the order is a nullity because of jurisdictional error or is outside the scope of the statute.”

“Urban Planning Cannot Be Held Hostage to Tactical Litigation—Statutory Scheme Must Be Allowed to Operate”

In strong language underscoring the broader public interest, the Court observed that rampant unauthorized construction in urban areas necessitates a strict approach to jurisdictional bars.

“The purpose behind Section 433A and similar provisions is to insulate regulatory action from dilatory tactics. Courts must not permit backdoor interference with statutory enforcement mechanisms.”

Justice Marne warned against a rising trend where “civil suits are tactically filed with vague prayers, only to secure interim protection and derail enforcement drives.”

He added: “The structure in question appeared to have been illegally expanded. The proper forum to contest demolition is under the statute—not by resorting to general civil remedies when statutory bar is clear.”

Plaint Rejected—Reinforcement of Legal Discipline in Urban Planning Litigation

Concluding the detailed and precedent-heavy judgment, the Court set aside the Trial Court’s refusal to reject the suit, holding:

“The plaint lacks material facts to escape the bar under Section 433A. The Trial Court’s approach was perfunctory and legally flawed. The suit is barred by law and must be rejected.”

To ensure fairness, the Court continued interim protection of status quo for four weeks, allowing the respondents an opportunity to approach a higher forum.

This ruling is a powerful reaffirmation of the judiciary’s limited role in matters involving statutory demolition under municipal law. It sends a strong signal that civil litigation cannot be used to indefinitely stall enforcement, and that plaintiffs must plead with precision if they seek to overcome jurisdictional bars.

For advocates handling urban development, construction, and municipal litigation, this judgment offers a clear roadmap on when civil suits are maintainable and when they must be dismissed at the threshold.

Date of Decision: 21 November 2025