RSA-3025-2010 (O&M)

1

206 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT

CHANDIGARH

RSA-3025-2010 (O&M)

Date of Decision: 21.12.2015

SURINDER SINGH

......Appellant

Vs.

PRITAM SINGH AND ORS.

....Respondents

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJ MOHAN SINGH

Present:

Mr. S.S. Rangi, Advocate

for the appellant.

Mr. S.S. Majithia, Advocate

for the respondents.

****

1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ?

2. To be referred to the Reporters or not ?

3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?

*****

RAJ MOHAN SINGH, J.

1)

Defendant is in second appeal against judgment and

decree dated 20.1.2010 passed by Additional District Judge, FTC,

Ludhiana, whereby appeal filed by the plaintiff against judgment

and decree dated 25.1.2008 passed by the Civil Judge (Junior

Division), Ludhiana has been accepted and defendant has been

given two months’ time to shift the workshop in dispute from the

residential locality.

2)

Plaintiffs filed suit for permanent injunction against the

defendant restraining him from changing the nature of the

SWARNJIT SINGH

2016.01.21 11:45

I attest to the accuracy and

authenticity of this document

RSA-3025-2010 (O&M)

2

property from residential to commercial by opening and operating

the Motor Workshop and service station in the suit land. The suit of

the plaintiff is based on the allegations that plaintiffs are

inhabitants of Rajguru Nagar Extension which is a residential

locality having no commercial or industrial activity in the locality.

Plaintiffs claim themselves to be active members of Rajguru Nagar

Extenstion Welfare Society. Plaintiff no.1 is the President of the

same. Plaintiffs alleged that defendant without any authority of law

and without obtaining any prior permission from the competent

authorities has threatened to change the nature of plot no.24 from

residential to commercial by opening and running a motor

workshop-cum-service station. The plaintiffs alleged that the

inhabitants of the locality would suffer constant nuisance and noise

pollution and the threatened action of the defendant would result

in accumulation of dirty water and would result in stagnation and

the carbon emitted from the vehicles would adversely affect the

health of the residents of the locality. The accumulation of stagnant

water would give rise to breeding of mosquitoes and flies which

may spread epidemy. Plaintiffs further alleged that the defendant

has threatened to proceed ahead with the workshop and he has

already stored building material and the mason and labour have

tried to construct and install the requisite construction for running

motor workshop on 28.12.2002. With this background, suit came to

be filed.

SWARNJIT SINGH

2016.01.21 11:45

I attest to the accuracy and

authenticity of this document

RSA-3025-2010 (O&M)

3

3)

Suit was contested by the defendant on all counts

including locus of the plaintiff to file the present suit and

jurisdiction of the Court. Defendant alleged that the plaintiffs are

not the inhabitants of the locality nor they are members of the

society plaintiff No.6. Defendant has contended that motor

workshop-cum-service station being run by defendant, does not

create any air or noise pollution. Proper arrangements have been

made by the defendant for the drainage of the water being used

for washing of the vehicles by digging a pit of considerable depth

which is capable of soaking the water used for washing purposes.

Defendant further alleged that there is no storage of any dirty

water nor there is any air or noise pollution. Defendant has also

contended that there is a diary farm running in the vicinity on one

side of the plot of the defendant and small scale industry of the

present nature is of no impediment in the present set of

circumstances. Defendant has claimed that he is also residing in

the same plot with his