8.As far as the present case is concerned, the relief sought for in the suit is against the defendants 2 and 3 not to approve any revision and/or deviation from the plan already sanctioned. The specific averment raised in the written statement filed by the second defendant is that the second defendant already issued demolition notice and caution notice against the unauthorised construction made by the first defendant. Such notice falls within the scope of section 56 of the Act. The learned brother judge in para 10 of the decision cited above, was of the view that the notice contemplated under Section 56 of the Act is not a mere notice of information, but it is a decision required to be taken if the condition under sub section (1) of Section 56 is fulfilled and if an application is made for permission under Section 49 as per sub section (3), then the notice shall not have any effect pending determination of the application as per sub section (4) and Section 80 provides for a revision by the Director on application to call for and examine the records of any officer subordinate to him. It is further observed therein that against the refusal to grant permission under Section 49, an appeal is provided for under Section 79 of the Act and a revision is provided for against the proceedings under Section 80 of the Act and there are other remedies available against any decision and the proceedings under the Act. That is why, the learned brother judge in para 14 was of the view that the civil court's jurisdiction is expressly barred by Section 101 r/w Section 49, Section 56 and Section 80 of the Act.
