JUDGMENT :

Narendra Singh Dhaddha, J.

1. Instant appeal has been preferred by the appellants-defendants (for short 'the defendants') against the judgment and decree dated 12.08.2022 passed by District Judge, Dausa in Civil Reular Appeal No. 01/2022 titled as Hukum Chand Sharma v. State of Rajasthan & Ors., whereby learned District Judge has allowed the appeal and set aside the order dated 18.11.2021 passed by learned Civil Judge, Dausa in Civil Suit No. 112/2021 titled as Hukum Chand v. State of Rajasthan & Ors.

2. Learned counsel for the defendants submits that respondent No. 1-plaintiff (for short 'the plaintiff') had filed a suit for permanent injunction before the trial court in which he alleged that defendants and perform-respondent Nos.4 and 5 are running the Gaytri Marriage Garden near Temple of 'Goddess Bhagwati' without permission. On account running of aforesaid marriage garden, noise pollution is being created and wastage is dumped by them. Learned counsel for the defendants also submits that appellants had filed an application under Order 7, Rule 11 CPC read with Section 151 CPC before the trial court. The trial court vide order dated 18.11.2021 allowed the application filed by the defendants and rejected/dismissed the suit filed by the plaintiff. Learned counsel for the defendants also submits that plaintiff had filed an appeal before the District Judge, Dausa who vide judgment dated 12.08.2022 allowed the appeal filed by the plaintiff and directed the trial court to decide the suit, as per law, on its merit. Learned counsel for the defendants also submits that the trial court while allowing the application filed by the defendants under Order 7, Rule 11 CPC clearly mentioned in its order dated 18.11.2021 that plaintiff had filed the suit seeking relief of public nature. So, SDM had power under Section 133 Cr.P.C. Learned counsel for the defendants also submits that a bare reading of the plaint revealed that relief claimed by the plaintiff is of public nuisance. So, without complying the provision of Section 91 CPC and Order 1, Rule 8 CPC, the present suit was not maintainable. Learned counsel for the defendants also submits that plaintiff had no locus standi to file the civil suit as a public interest litigation. Learned counsel for the defendants submits that relief sought by plaintiff can only be granted by National Green Tribunal. So, civil court had no jurisdiction to entertain the present suit. So, judgment of the appellate court be set aside and order of the trial court be restored.

3. Learned counsel for the defendants has placed reliance upon the following judgments : (1) Ratnagiri Nagar Parishad v. Gangaram Narayan Ambekar & Ors. reported in (2020) 7 SCC 275; (2)State of Rajasthan v. Rao Raja Kalyan Singh (dead) by his Legal Representatives reported in AIR 1971 SC 2018; (3)Kanti & Ors. v. U.I.T., Bikaner & Ors. reported in 1998 RLR (1) 241 and (4)Padhiyar Prahladji Chenaji (Deceased) through LRs v. Maniben Jagmalbhai (Deceased) through LRs reported in 2022 (1) DNJ 302.

4. Learned counsel for the plaintiff has opposed the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the defendants and submitted that trial court had committed error in allowing the application filed by the defendants under Order 7, Rule 11 read with section 151 CPC. The appellate court vide judgment dated 12.08.2022 rightly set aside the order of the trial court. He further submitted that plaintiff had civil and fundamental right to live in a pollution free environment and he in his suit clearly mentioned that due to pollution, he is unable to worship the deity and perform rituals in the temple. He also stated that other devotees had also suffered due to noise pollution. He further submitte