IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
H. P. SANDESH, J.
Sri Shivananda Sharma, Memorial Rashtriya, Vidyalaya Degree College, Represented By Its Secretary and Anr. - Appellants
Versus
Smt. Shantha Nagesha Rao, W/o. Late Nagesha Rao and Ors. – Respondents
M.F.A. No.2731 Of 2023 (CPC)
Decided On : 28-07-2023
Civil Procedure Code, 1908 – Order 43, Rule 1(r) – Section 151, 9 – Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 – Section 28, 58 – Specific Relief Act, 1963 – Section 41(h) – National Green Tribunal Act, 2010 – Section 29, 14, 15 – Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 – Section 46 – Appeal – Bar of jurisdiction – Injunction when refused – Tribunal to settle disputes – Compensation and Restitution – Control of Pollution – Granting an order of injunction against defendants - Whether Trial Court committed an error in allowing the application filed under Order 39, Rule 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of C.P.C. granting an order of injunction against the defendants - Whether the Trial Court has committed an error in not considering issue of jurisdiction in entertaining the suit and ought not to have granted the relief of injunction - In order to consider the same, Court has to look into the relief sought in the plaint before the Trial Court.
Finding of the court: Issue involved between parties is with regard to jurisdiction as well as merits of application and relief sought is also for mandatory injunction to remove STP, same requires to be considered by Trial Court and Trial Court failed to take note of relief sought in I.A. and also pleadings and main relief sought in plaint and consider bar under Section 58 of Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 and also bar under Section 29 of National Green Tribunal Act, 2010, It requires interference of this Court.
Result: Appeal allowed.
JUDGMENT :
1. Heard the learned counsel for the appellants and learned counsel for the respondents.
2. This appeal is filed under Order 43, Rule 1(r) read with Section 151 of C.P.C. challenging the order dated 01.03.2023 passed in O.S.No.3213/2019 on the file of the III Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru City (CCH No.25), allowing I.A. No.1 filed under Order 39, Rule 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of C.P.C. granting an order of injunction against the defendants.
3. The factual matrix of the case of the plaintiffs before the Trial Court is that the plaintiffs had filed the suit against the defendants for permanent injunction in which I.A.No.1 is filed for restraining the defendant Nos.1 and 2, men agents and such other persons or claiming through them in any manner operating the Sewerage Treatment Plant installed by the defendants in schedule ‘A’ property.
4. In support of the application, an affidavit is sworn to by the power of attorney holder that the plaintiffs are the absolute owners in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. The property belonging in which the defendants are in occupation lies towards western side of his property who are running some educational institutions in schedule ‘A’ property, in which the campus comprises of 5 floors. In the setback area on the eastern side of the schedule ‘A’ property, the defendants have illegally set up a Sewerage Treatment Plant by violating the rules and regulations pertaining to the installation, commissioning and running of Sewerage Treatment Plant. Having installed and running Sewerage Treatment Plant, plaintiffs have been put to immense hardship, injury, loss and constant foul smell emanating from it and huge pipes are installed to run the plant. On one occasion on account of the pipe having burst, faucal matter was thrown and spread across the property. Hence, the plaintiffs will be put to hardship and inconvenience and it is prevented from enjoying the schedule property. After several requests, defendants are least bothered of infringement of their rights. The balance of convenience lies in their favour and in granting an interim order. If the application is not allowed, the plaintiffs will be put to great hardship and loss which cannot be compensated in any means.
5. This application was resisted by the defendants by filing written statement along with a memo to consider the written statement as objections to I.A.No.1. In the written statement, it is contended that the averments made in the plaint are false and the very suit itself is not maintainable and the same is liable to be dismissed. It is contended that BWSSB and KSPCB have passed notification and circular stating that all educational institutions measuring more than 5,000 square meters shall establish Sewerage Treatment Plant in their premises. Therefore, BWSSB and KSPCB are just and necessary parties to the suit. It is contended that the second defendant is a registered Trust established in the year 1940 by late Shivananda Sarma and it is the fastest growing institution in the State, where 16,000 students are studying and the first defendant is one such institution established by the second defendant in the year 1982. Further, BDA authority leased the suit schedule ‘A’ property to the second defendant for a period of 30 years vide registered lease deed dated 03.01.2009 and in first defendant’s college, more than 2,500 students are studying. The entire suit schedule ‘A’ property has been developed by the second defendant by putting up buildings for educational institutions and there was no vacant space available for establishing Sewerage Treatment Plant, except on the eastern side of suit schedule ‘A’ property and have established Sewerage Treatment Plant in terms of the gazette notification and circular. It is also contended that the water coming out of the Membrane Bio Reactor Technology will be filtered up to 0.12 to 0.4 microns and will be free from e-coli, colour and odour.
Thressiamma, Alias Valsamma Vs. Sebastian Mathew
Radhey Shiam Vs. Gur Prasad Serma And Another
Ramesh Gobindram (Dead) Through Lrs. Vs. Sugra Humayun Mirza Wakf
Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation And Another Vs. Bal Mukund Bairwa
Manohar Lal (Dead) By Lrs. Vs. Ugrasen (Dead) By Lrs. and Others
Bachhaj Nahar Vs. Nilima Mandal And Another
Smt. Lalithakshi Annadanagouda Vs. Sadashivappa Basappa Patil And Another
The Municipal Corporation Of Delhi Vs. Shri Suresh Chandra Jaipuria And Another
Jagmittar Sain Bhagat And Others Vs. Director, Health Services
Point of law: When the guidelines is prospective, the same ought to have been considered by the Trial Court, since the suit was filed in 2019 and committed an error in passing such an order.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the plaint could be rejected as a whole against a statutory authority if it is found to be barred under specific provisions of the relevant Ac....
The National Green Tribunal must comply with principles of natural justice, ensuring parties have the opportunity to present their case before any adverse decisions are made.
(1) Courts shall have jurisdiction to try all suits of civil nature excepting suits of which their cognizance is either expressly or impliedly barred.(2) Issue relating to a common drain between two ....
The main legal point established is that matters involving substantial questions relating to the environment, as defined in the NGT Act, fall within the jurisdiction of the National Green Tribunal an....
Court confirmed the mandatory requirement of gap analysis for the establishment of new biomedical waste facilities, emphasizing jurisdictional limitations on appellate authority and the importance of....
Civil Courts cannot entertain suits challenging notices of unauthorized construction unless a clear case of nullity is demonstrated, as per statutory provisions under Section 433A of the Maharashtra ....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.