S VENKATESH Vs. P POONGODI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE revision petitioner/respondent/defendant in the suit has file the above civil revision petition aggrieved against the Judgment dated 22.8.2008 in C.M.A.No.17 of 2008 passed by the Principal Subordinate Judge, Salem allowing the C.M.A and setting aside the order passed by the First Additional District Munsif, Salem in I.A.No.121 of 2008 in O.S.No.88 of 2008 restraining the defendant/revision petitioner herein from running powerloom machinery between 6.00p.m.,to 6.0o a.m by means of ad interim injunction till the disposal of the suit.

(2.) ACCORDING to the learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner/respondent/defendant, the learned Principal Subordinate Judge, Salem has not taken into consideration the fact that the Municipal Council has not issued any direction for abatement of nuisance and further that as per Section 251 of the Tamil Nadu District Municipalities Act 1920 working of factory, workshop or workplace can be restricted if wilful default is made in carrying out the direction of the Municipality and this aspect has not been taken note of by the learned Principal Subordinate Judge, Salem while pronouncing Judgment in C.M.A.No.17 of 2008 and in any event the Judgment passed by the learned Principal Subordinate Judge, Salem in C.M.A.No.17 of 2008 is an erroneous one and against the principles of law and therefore prays for allowing the civil revision petition.

(3.) HOWEVER, the learned Principal Subordinate Judge, Salem in the Judgment passed in C.M.A.No.17 of 2008 has inter alia opined that the revision petitioner/defendant is running nearly six looms in his house and there is no evidence before the Court that the house is situated in non residential locality or it is in the factory premises and further that as per Ex B1 to Ex B3 house tax receipts , the revision petitioner/defendant is running power looms in his house and it is not a place of factory and though the Municipal authorities have not taken any steps, but the Civil Court has right to prevent such nuisance by giving interim prohibitory orders and further if the power looms are allowed to run upto 9.30 p.m., it will cause much hardship to the children or aged persons, residing in the plaintiff's house and therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case has restrained the revision petitioner/defendant from running the power loom from 7.30 p.m., to 6.30 a.m., by way of passing temporary injunction and setting aside the fair and decretal order passed in I.ANo.121 of 2008 in O.S.No.88 of 2008 dated 9.4.2008 by allowing the civil miscellaneous appeal.