The court emphasized the impermissibility of raising new grounds in a revision under Article 227 of the Constitution of India and ruled that the issues raised should be decided during trial.

This Civil Revision Petition has been filed challenging the fair and decreetal order passed in I.A.No.76 of 2017 in O.S.No.202 of 2016 by the learned Additional District Munsif, Padmanabapuram dated 08.08.2017, dismissing the application filed under Order VII Rule 11 of Civil Procedure Code.

2. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the first respondent herein as plaintiff has filed a suit for declaration in his favour to declare that the plan in Building Approval No.75 of 2016 issued in favour of the petitioner/7th defendant in respect of the suit schedule properties is null and void and also for permanent injunction, restraining the 7th defendant thereon, his men and agents and persons claiming through him, from establishing and running cashew-nut industry or any other industry in the suit schedule properties.

3. The case of the first respondent/plaintiff before the Court of the learned Additinoal District Munsif at Padmanabapuram is that the petitioner herein attempted to set up a cashew nut roasting industry in the village of Kunjukarumbu Thottam Oor, in a residential property. He states that since the establishment of the said industry will be hazardous to the health of the villagers, which also will create respiratory problems to the people of his village, hence checked with the officials namely the other respondents/defendants regarding approval/permission obtained by the petitioner, having found that the petitioner has not obtained any proper permission/approval in a proper manner more particularly from Pollution Control Board, which is an essential requirement for running a Cashew nut roasting industry. Apart from this, the property is only a dwelling house ? residential property and has been converted as an industry by the 7th defendant, which is not correct. Hence, the suit has been filed by him, in representative capacity, on behalf of the people in Kunjukarumbu Thottam Oor Village, challenging the sanction of planning permission issued by the seventh respondent panchayat and also for the relief of a permanent injunction restraining the petitioner herein from running a cashew nut roasting industry.

4. In the said suit, the first respondent/plaintiff, has filed three applications namely, I.A.No.720 of 2016 seeking to institute a suit in representative capacity, I.A.No.721 of 2016 for temporary injunction and I.A.No.722 of 2016, seeking for appointment of Advocate Commissioner to inspect the suit property. According to the petitioner herein, who is the seventh defendant in the suit, filed counter affidavit in the applications in I.A.Nos.720 to 722 of 2016, also filed an application in I.A.No.76 of 2017 seeking to reject the suit in O.S.No.202 of 2016 for want of jurisdiction and also raised issue as to maintainability of the suit. The first respondent/plaintiff resisted the said application by filing a counter affidavit, questioning the classification of the suit schedule properties, which are residential and the suit filed by him challenging the sanction of plan/planning permission.

5. After hearing the application in I.A.No.76 of 2017 in the said suit, the learned Additional District Munsif, Padmanabapuram, by an order dated 08.08.2017, dismissed the application and the present Civil Revision Petition has been filed challenging the same, at the instance of the petitioner, who is the 7th defendant in the said suit.

6. The first limb of argument raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner does not require any permission from the Tamilnadu Pollution Control Board as the industry namely Cashew nut roasting industry is being run with less than 20 persons and the same is not deemed to be an industry and hence no permission is required to be obtained from the Pollution Control Board. The second limb of argument is that the suit, which has been filed under representative capacity, has not followed the mandatory requirements under the provisions contained under Order 1 Ru