As per case facts, the Respondent's authorized hut, located in a declared 'Slum' area, was demolished following a notice issued by the Appellant. The Respondent had previously filed a suit ... challenging this, which was later withdrawn with liberty to file a fresh suit. In the subsequent suit, she sought a declaration that the demolition notice and order were illegal and permission for reconstruction. The Appellant did not file a Written Statement in this suit. The question arose whether the Trial Court was correct in deeming the demolition illegal and allowing reconstruction, especially considering the Appellant's arguments regarding res judicata and the necessity of a title suit, and the Appellant's failure to submit a written defense. Finally, the Court dismissed the appeal, holding that since the previous suit was withdrawn with liberty and not finally decided, res judicata did not apply. It also found no grounds for remand due to the Appellant's deliberate choice not to file a Written Statement. The Court affirmed that the demolition was illegal as the hut was a protected structure in a slum area, rightly allowing the Respondent to re-erect her hut.