A R PONNUSAMY Vs. THOPPALAN ALIAS KARUPPA GOUNDER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Since the issue raised in both the Revision Petitions is one and the same, they are being disposed of by the following common order. Defendant in O. S. No. 516 of 1999 on the file of the Additional District Munsif, Namakkal, aggrieved by the order dated 12-4-2002 passed in the suit, holding that the District Munsif s Court has jurisdiction to try the issue raised, has filed C. R. P. No. 797/2002 under S. 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

(2.) The very same petitioner, aggrieved by the order of the same Court dated 26-8-2002 in I. A. No. 874/99 in O. S. No. 516/ 99, granting injunction and continuing the same without taking up the injunction application, has filed C. R. P. No. 1751/2002 under Art. 227 of the Constitution of India.

(3.) According to the plaintiff/respondent herein, he filed a suit in O. S. No. 516 of 1999 on the file of the District Munsif, Namakkal, against the defendant/petitioner herein for permanent injunction, restraining him (defendant/petitioner herein) from carrying on the business of stone crushing by using the stone Crushers in S. No. 204/ 4A of. Marurbatty village. In the said suit, the respondent contended that if the petitioner operates the crushing unit in S. No. 204/4A, it will generate dust pollution and due to the same the respondent and his family members will be putto great hardship, inconvenience and loss. Further, the petitioner has not obtained any order from the Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board; hence the petitioner is not entitled to carry on the operation. The respondent herein filed I. A. No. 874/99 and obtained an order of injunction on 25-8-99. The respondent has no right to file a civil suit against the crushing unit which has obtained consent from the Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board for running the unit by complying with the terms and conditions of the Board. In view of the bar under the Act, the person aggrieved can file a complaint only before the appropriate authority constituted under the Act. The learned District Munsif has framed the issue of maintainability of the suit as a preliminary issue as to whether the Court has jurisdiction to try the suit. As against the order of the District Munsif, in the preliminary issue, the petitioner has filed C. R. P. No. 572/2001 before this Court. By order dated 20-7-2001, this Court dismissed the said Revision holding that the suit is maintainable. The dismissal of the earlier C. R. P. will not inhibit the petitioner from seeking the legal remedy that is available to him. It is also stated that though the learned District Munsif granted an injunction on 25-8-99 and even after filing his counter on 20-1-2000, the trial Judge without taking the injunction application for enquiry and dispose of the same, is extending the (injunction order without any valid rea'son and thereby preventing the petitioner from running the crushing unit. In C. R. P. No. 797/ 2002 the petitioner has claimed that the Court below has no jurisdiction to hear the main suit namely O. S. No. 516/99. In C. R. P. No. 1751/2002 the very same petitioner has claimed that in any event the Court below was not justified in keeping the injunction application, particularly even after filing of the counter affidavit.