This appeal is preferred by the original plaintiffs under section 100 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. It seeks to challenge judgment and order dated 19th June, 2013 of learned IInd Additional District Judge, Bharuch, passed in Regular Civil Appeal No. 45 of 2013. The first appellate court confirmed the judgment and order of the trial court dated 15th April, 2012 passed below Exh. 17 application allowing the said application, and thereby rejecting the plaint under Order XI, Rule 7(d) of the Code.

2. The controversy relates to the question whether bar of jurisdiction of the civil court envisaged under section 29 of the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010, was attracted in respect of the suit of the plaintiffs, and whether therefore, the exercise of powers by the courts under Order VII, Rule 7(d) of the Code was justified in law.

2.1 In the memorandum of appeal, the appellants pleaded the following questions, proposing them to be the substantial questions of law arising in the appeal.

“(A) Whether the suit of the appellants is barred by National Green Tribunal NGT Act 2010.

(B) Whether the averment in suit that “discharge of chemical mixed water through canal that may cause damage to human” is sufficient to exclude the jurisdiction of the Civil Court though in suit no order under any of Act shown in schedule I of BGT Act 2010 is challenged.

(C) Whether section 2(1) m and 14 of NGT Act 2010 have any application to the Civil Suit of Appellants.

(D) The preventing the company from laying pipeline to drain discharged water could be said to be substantial question of environment.

(E) Whether the suit against public nuisance can be said to be barred under NGT Act, 2010.

(F) Whether the trial court can see the pleading other than the suit and document of defendants while deciding the application under order 7 rule 11.

(G) Whether the trial court can go beyond the pleading while deciding the application which is not labeled as to under which provision of law it is preferred.

(H) Whether the impugned order of trail court as well as judgment and decree of Appellant and decree of Appellate court is legal.”

3. The facts and the subject-matter of the suit instituted by the plaintiffs may be appropriately stated at the outset. The original plaintiffs instituted Regular Civil Suit No. 138 of 2012 before the court of Principal Civil Judge, Jambusar. The suit was for the relief of declaration and permanent injunction. The two defendants impleaded in the suit were the companies carrying on industrial activities and operations. It was the case of the plaintiffs that they were the owners of the agricultural lands. It was stated that after their agricultural fields, a water way was passing for exit of rainy water and thereafter a canal for effluent discharge was constructed. Thereafter, there was a road adjoining.

3.1 It was stated that the said area was declared as Special Economic Zone. It was the case that the defendant companies were engaged in manufacturing of pesticides by use of chemicals. The factories were situated in the said Special Economic Zone (SEZ) known as Sterling Economic Zone. It was plaintiffs’ case that the defendants were required to obtain necessary permission from Gujarat Pollution Control Board before establishing their factories, that they were required to create necessary intra-structural facilities to counter the menace of air and water pollution. It was alleged that the defendant had not taken any such permission from the Board. It was stated that even if any such permission was given, the same was without compliance of law, because no public hearing was conducted. Therefore, it was not binding to the plaintiffs. It was further stated that the land of the plaintiff, other lands situated in the vicinity and the lands of agriculturists in the nearby villages were acquired by the State Government for the purpose of Effluent Channel Project Ltd. (ECPL). It was stated further that in the land other than the acquired la