132 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA-3586-2025 (O&M)

Date of Decision: 20.11.2025 RAGHBIR SINGH ....Appellant Versus AARAV BRICKS INDUSTRY AND OTHERS ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PARMOD GOYAL Present: Ms. Jigyasa Tanwar, Advocate for the appellant.

Parmod Goyal, J. (Oral)

CM-13154-C-2025 The present application has been filed for seeking condonation of delay of 32 days in fling the appeal.

In view of the averments made in the application, the same is allowed.

Main Case Appellant/plaintiff by way of present regular second appeal is aggrieved by judgment and decree dated 05.03.2024, passed by learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Patiala vide which suit for mandatory injunction directing defendants/respondents to remove brick industry which is installed in the land duly described in the plaint adjoining to the land owned by plaintiffs was dismissed. Appellant/plaintiff is also aggrieved by dismissal of his first appeal vide judgment and decree dated

27.05.2025, passed by learned Additional District Judge, Patiala.

2. The simple case of appellant/plaintiffs in his suit for mandatory injunction was to stop respondent No.1 from operating brick klin on the land adjoining to lands of plaintiffs. It was their case that defendant No.1 has illegally and wrongly installed brick kiln in the neighbourhood of plaintiffs in connivance of defendants No.2 and 3. It is asserted that no CLU, pollution certificate or necessary permissions were taken by defendant No.1 to operate brick kiln in the neighbourhood of plaintiffs.

3. Defendant No.1 in his written statement took number of preliminary objections. On merits it was asserted that suit has been filed only to defame defendants and to extract easy money. It was asserted that brick klin was set up after seeking approval from each and every department which was required for running brick kiln. He asserted that no objection/NOC from Punjab Pollution Control Board and License from DFSC, Patiala after fulfilling all the norms was taken and thereafter brick kiln was started. Accordingly, dismissal of suit was prayed for.

4. Defendants No.2 and 3 also took number of preliminary objections similar to that of defendant No.1. On merits it was asserted that it is defendants No.2 and 3 who are owners of suit land and they have leased out said land for brick kiln and defendant No.1 after seeking all the approvals required for running a brick klin had set up the brick klin. It was asserted that plaintiffs have concocted a false story and assertions made in plaint were stated to be wrong and denied and accordingly dismissal of suit was sought.

5. Onus to prove that plaintiffs were entitled to relief of mandatory injunction was on plaintiffs. Both the Courts have found that defendant No.1 had set up the brick kiln after taking due permission from Punjab Pollution Control Board and getting license to run brick kiln from competent authority i.e. DFSC, Patiala. It is also duly noted by learned Courts below that brick kiln is being inspected after every six months by the authorities. Further both the Courts have noticed and referred to evidence led by plaintiffs and defendants to conclude that appellant/plaintiff had failed to show that on account of running or brick kiln they are suffering from asthama ailment as was pleaded by them in the petition. Similarly, plaintiffs have further failed to prove any damage to their crops by leading any evidence in affirmative due to running of brick klin. No material or legal restriction justifying closure of brick klin has been shown.

6. The oral assertions made by plaintiffs were rightly ignored and not accepted by Courts below to conclude any damage being suffered on account of existence of brick kiln. The findings of facts by both the Courts is based upon evidence led by the parties and the Court in the Regular Second Appeal cannot re-appreciate evidence and come to a different conclusion even if two views are possible. No case for