1. Suit for permanent injunction against running a motor workshop in a residential locality causing nuisance and pollution. (Para 2 , 3 )
Back
Next 
HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Raj Mohan Singh, J
Surinder Singh – Appellant
Versus
Pritam Singh – Respondent
RSA-3025-2010 (O&M)
Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: S.S. Rangi
For the Respondents: S.S. Majithia
For the Appellants/Petitioners: S.S. Rangi
For the Respondents: S.S. Majithia
Commercial activities in residential zones without competent authority permission are impermissible. Regular civil suits for injunction against public nuisance remain maintainable independently of Section 91 CPC and regardless of the outcome of emergency proceedings under Section 133 Cr.P.C.
Headnote:(A) Public Nuisance - Commercial Activity in Residential Area - Operation of a motor workshop-cum-service station in a residential locality without permission from competent authorities constitutes a nuisance and is impermissible, especially where it causes noise and water pollution. (Para 12, 14)
(B) Civil Procedure - Section 91 CPC - Public Nuisance - Suit for injunction against public nuisance can be filed by inhabitants of a locality independently of the provisions of Section 91 CPC, and the requirement of filing through the Advocate General or two or more persons does not limit independent rights to a suit. (Para 13, 15)
(C) Criminal Procedure - Section 133 Cr.P.C. - Nature of Proceedings - Proceedings under Section 133 Cr.P.C. are of an emergency nature for immediate interference; the dismissal of such proceedings is not a bar to seeking a regular remedy through a civil suit for permanent injunction for existing violations. (Para 14, 15)
Issues: Whether a motor workshop can be operated in a residential locality and whether the civil suit was maintainable despite prior proceedings under Section 133 Cr.P.C. and the provisions of Section 91 CPC.
Result: Appeal dismissed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
- property law
- practice and procedure
- criminal procedure
Table of Contents
2. Plaintiffs claimed nuisance and lack of permission; defendant argued no pollution, proper drainage, and disputed plaintiffs' locus standi. (Para 3 , 4 )
3. Commercial activity cannot operate in a residential zone without permission; it causes noise and water pollution; Section 91 CPC applies. (Para 12 , 13 , 14 )
4. Running a commercial workshop in a residential area without permission constitutes a public nuisance remediable by injunction under Section 91 CPC. (Para 13 , 14 , 15 )
5. Second appeal dismissed; lower appellate court's decree granting injunction and time to shift workshop upheld. (Para 15 , 16 )
6. Is Section 91 CPC applicable in a suit for permanent injunction regarding a public nuisance?
Yes, Section 91 CPC allows a suit for public nuisance by two or more persons, but it does not affect an existing independent right of suit. (Para 13 , 14 , 15 )
7. Can a suit for permanent injunction be filed after proceedings under Section 133 CrPC?
Yes, Section 133 CrPC is for emergency nuisances; an existing nuisance can be remedied by a regular suit for permanent injunction. (Para 14 )
8. Can commercial activity be allowed in a residential locality without permission from the competent authority?
No, commercial activity in a residential zone without permission from the competent authority is not allowed and can be restrained. (Para 12 , 14 , 15 )
9. Does the absence of a sewerage system affect liability for nuisance from a motor workshop?
Yes, the absence of a sewerage system increases the risk of stagnation and pollution, supporting a finding of nuisance. (Para 11 , 14 )
10. Is a substantial question of law required for interference in a second appeal against a finding of perversity?
Yes, a finding must be perverse to raise a substantial question of law; mere disagreement with evidence is insufficient. (Para 15 )
****
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 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 Extension 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.
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 family and is earning his livelihood by operating the service station by washing small vehicles like cars and scooters. He has constructed and installed a paraphernalia to run the workshop on 28.12.2002 and service station is in operation and is in working condition prior to filing of the suit.
4) After filing of replication, following issues were framed by the trial Court:-
“(1) Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to permanent injunction as prayed for?OPP
(2) Whether the suit is maintainable in the present form?OPP
(3) Whether the plaintiffs have got locus standi to file the present suit?OPP
(4) Whether the plaintiffs have not come to the court with clean hands?OPD
(5) Whether the Civil Court has got the jurisdiction to entert
