SUBHASH SATYA Vs. RAM NARAIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the order dated 28/03/1990 passed by Sri M.A. Khan, Civil Judge, Bahraich. The facts which are relevant for this appeal are that the plaintiff-respondents filed a suit for permanent injunction against the appellants of this appeal. In that suit application for temporary injunction under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 read with S. 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure was also moved by the plaintiff-respondents. According to the plaintiff-respondents they have groves in village Belha Raghav and village Tilakpur. The defendant-appellants are owners of plot No. 5 M in village Belha Raghav and they are making preparations and digging for installation of one brick kiln. They are trying to give fire to the brick kiln. The groves of the plaintiff-respondents are situated at the distance of one kilometer from the alleged brick kiln. If the fire is induced in the brick kiln then on account of the smoke coming out of the chimney the mango crop belonging to the plaintiff respondents will suffer and a lot of damage will be caused to the grove which will adversely affect their income from the grove. They prayed that the defendant-appellants should be stopped from starting their brick kiln.

(2.) Against this application objection was filed by the defendant-appellants alleging therein that the plaintiffs 7 to 17 have a brick kiln quite near to the brick kiln of the defendant-appellants and on account of business of the plaintiffs this suit has been filed. The plaintiffs 7 to 17 apprehend that the brick kiln of the defendant-appellants will cause losses to their brick kiln. According to them there is no remedy existing in favour of the plaintiff-respondents as no irreparable injury or damage will be caused to them and therefore no injunction be granted to them.

(3.) Learned trial court after considering the entire evidence on record which the parties had produced before the court, came to the conclusion that on account of the brick kiln of the defendant-appellants irreparable loss will be caused; hence allowed the application for temporary injunction restraining the defendant-appellants from operating the brick kiln. Aggrieved against this order the defendants have come up in this appeal and have challenged the findings recorded by the trial court.