HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN

BENCH AT JAIPUR

S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 2338/2022

1.

Mahesh Chand Sharma S/o Late Mohan Lal Sharma, Chief

Organizer Of Gaytri Vivah Palace, Near Somnath Circle,

Dausa And Residents Of Near Phalse Vale Balaji, Dausa

Tehsil, District Dausa (Raj.)

2.

Santosh Devi W/o Mahesh Chand Sharma, Chief

Organizer Of Gaytri Vivah Palace, Near Somnath Circle,

Dausa And Residents Of Near Phalse Vale Balaji, Dausa

Tehsil, District Dausa (Raj.)

----Appellants

Versus

1.

Hukam Chand Sharma S/o Gopi Nath Sharma, Resident

Of Opposite Neeru Palace, Ramkund Kuan, Babaji Ki

Chavni Road, Tehsil And District Dausa (Raj.)

...Respondent-Plaintiff

2.

State Of Rajasthan, Through District Collector, Dausa.

3.

Rajasthan State Pollution Control Board, 4, Jhalana

Dungri Institutional Area, Jaipur Through Member

Secretary.

...Respondents-Defendants

4.

Heeralal S/o Shri Madholal, Employee Of Gaytri Vivah

Palace And Resident Of Balaji Tent House, Gaytri Nagar,

Tehsil And District Dausa (Raj.)

5.

Shyam Sundar S/o Shri Madholal Sharma, Employee Of

Gaytri Vivah Palace And Resident Of Balaji Tent House,

Gaytri Nagar, Tehsil And District Dausa (Raj.)

---Proforma-Respondents

For Appellant(s)

:

Mr. R. K. Daga, Adv.

For Respondent(s)

:

Mr. Manoj Kumar Bhardwaj, Adv.

Mr. V. P. Mathur, Adv. for respondent

No.3

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA

Judgment

(2 of 5)

[CMA-2338/2022]

DATE OF JUDGMENT

::

12/07/2023

Instant appeal has been preferred by the appellants-

defendants (for short ‘the defendants’) against the judgment and

decree dated 12.08.2022 passed by District Judge, Dausa in Civil

Reular Appeal No.01/2022 titled as Hukum Chand Sharma Vs.

State of Rajasthan & Ors., whereby learned District Judge has

allowed the appeal and set aside the order dated 18.11.2021

passed by learned Civil Judge, Dausa in Civil Suit No.112/2021

titled as Hukum Chand Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.

Learned counsel for the defendants submits that respondent

No.1-plaintiff (for short ‘the plaintiff’) had filed a suit for

permanent injunction before the trial court in which he alleged

that defendants and performa-respondent Nos.4 and 5 are

running the Gaytri Marriage Garden near Temple of ‘Goddess

Bhagwati’ without permission. On account running of aforesaid

marriage garden, noise pollution is being created and wastage is

dumped by them. Learned counsel for the defendants also submits

that appellants had filed an application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC

read with Section 151 CPC before the trial court. The trial court

vide order dated 18.11.2021 allowed the application filed by the

defendants and rejected/dismissed the suit filed by the plaintiff.

Learned counsel for the defendants also submits that plaintiff had

filed an appeal before the District Judge, Dausa who vide

judgment dated 12.08.2022 allowed the appeal filed by the

plaintiff and directed the trial court to decide the suit, as per law,

on its merit. Learned counsel for the defendants also submits that

the trial court while allowing the application filed by the

(3 of 5)

[CMA-2338/2022]

defendants under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC clearly mentioned in its

order dated 18.11.2021 that plaintiff had filed the suit seeking

relief of public nature. So, SDM had power under Section 133

Cr.P.C. Learned counsel for the defendants also submits that a

bare reading of the plaint revealed that relief claimed by the

plaintiff is of public nuisance. So, without complying the provision

of Section 91 CPC and order 1 Rule 8 CPC, the present suit was

not maintainable. Learned counsel for the defendants also submits

that plaintiff had no locus standi to file the civil suit as a public

interest litigation. Learned counsel for the defendants submits that

relief sought by plaintiff can only be granted by National Green

Tribunal. So, civil court had no jurisdiction to entertain