No reason assigned for grant of ad interim injunction.

(Petitions filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for the reasons as stated therein.)

Civil Revision Petition No.207 of 2006 is filed for striking of the plaint in O.S.No.53 of 2006 on the file of the Principal District Munsif, Erode. Civil Revision Petition No.208 of 2006 is filed by the revision petitioner against the order dated 25.01.2006 passed by the Principal District Munsif, Erode, granting exparte ad-interim injunction in I.A.No.121 of 2006 in O.S.No.53 of 2006 filed by the respondent.

2. The respondent is a resident of No.85, Nasiyanur Road, Narayanavalasu, Erode – 11. According to the respondent/plaintiff, the revision petitioner/first defendant was running a Food Processing Industry and since it is causing pollution, nuisance and health hazard, it should be declared that the revision petitioner is not entitled to run the industry manufacturing Masala Powder causing air and noise pollution to the plaintiff and his family at his house situated in the residential area. He also filed I.A.No.121 of 2006 for grant of ad-interim injunction restraining the revision petitioner from running the industry and manufacturing of masala powder.

3. The trial Court, by an order dated 25.01.2006, ordered notice to the revision petitioner and directed to file counter on 27.01.2006 and granted ad-interim injunction till then. On 27.01.2006, the learned counsel for the revision petitioner filed a counter and the matter was posted on 30.01.2006 and the trial Court extended the interim order. On 30.01.2006, after taking the counter on file and marking the documents, the interim order was further extended stating that the order is to be pronounced on 07.02.2006. This is wholly unjustified and contrary to Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC. In the counter statement filed by the revision petitioner, he had clearly described in paragraph 4 the steps taken by him with reference to the running of the industry and he has also mentioned about the consent order obtained from the Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board with reference to the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 and Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981, the permission given by the Town Panchayat at Veerappanchatram and the Registration Certificate obtained from the District Industries Centre. Inspite of all these, the trial Court granted an ad-interim injunction thereby bringing abrupt closure of activities of the revision petitioner Company. It is, at this juncture, the revision petitioner has come forward to file these two Civil Revision Petitions.

4. I have heard the arguments of Mr.V.P.Sengottuvel, learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner as well as Mr.N.Manokaran, learned counsel appearing for the first respondent, Mr.P.S.Jayaraman and Ms.R.Revathy, learned Government Advocates representing the respondents 2 and 4 respectively and have perused the records.

5. At the outset, learned counsel appearing for the respondent objected to the hearing of the revision petitions on the ground that the order passed by the trial Court was only an ad-interim injunction and, therefore, there is time enough for the trial Court to come to the conclusion in one way or the other. The learned counsel stated that the striking of the plaint will come only if the issues are raised before the trial Court. Therefore, both the revision petitions should be dismissed and direction must be given to the revision petitioner to approach the trial Court.

6. It is in this context, he cited the judgment of this Court reported in 2003 (2) CTC 516 [A.R.Ponnusamy vs. Thoppalan @ Karuppa Gounder] wherein it is stated that the bar under Section 46 found in the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act 1981 will not operate against the Civil Court entertaining a suit as the suit is not challenging any order passed by the authorities. However, it must be seen from the said judgment that the suit was filed against the defendant from carrying on business of ston