CR No. 8332 of 2010 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR No. 8332 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision:- 21.12.2010 State of Punjab and ors ......petitioners vs. Rattan Singh and ors ......respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA Present: - Mr. S.S. Sahu, AAG, Punjab for the petitioners HEMANT GUPTA, J (ORAL) Challenge in the present revision petition is to an order passed by learned trial Court on 5.8.2010, whereby an order passed by learned trial Court rejecting the plaint filed by the plaintiff-respondent No. 1 was set aside in appeal Plaintiff-respondent has filed a suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendants and their agents to interfere or obstruct the flow of waste water into the pond situated on G.T. Road, village Kanech, District Ludhiana. Learned trial Court on 15.12.2003 on an application under Order 7 Rule 11 of Code of Civil Procedure filed by defendants No. 4 and 5 ordered the rejection of the plaint after returning a finding that the plaintiff may approach the competent authorities to seek permission for the discharge of waste water. It is the said order which has been set aside in an appeal by the learned trial Court vide the order impugned in the present revision petition. It is the case of the petitioner that in view of judgment of the CR No. 8332 of 2010 -2- Hon'ble Supreme Court in AIR 1997 SC 1228 T.N. Godawaraman Thirumulkped vs. Union of India and ors, all non forest activities have to be stopped in forest area. Therefore, the plaintiff cannot be permitted to carry out non forest activities in the area, in dispute. Therefore, the order passed by learned trial Court was correct in law. Learned counsel for the petitioner could not refer to any statutory provision which bars the jurisdiction of the civil Court to entertain the suit for permanent injunction. It is one thing to say that the plaintiff may not be entitled to injunction and to say that the jurisdiction of the civil Court is barred and the plaint is liable to be rejected. In terms of the aforesaid judgment, it may be that the plaintiff are not entitled to ad interim injunction but to return a finding that the civil Court has no jurisdiction to entertain such like suit is not sustainable and has been rightly found by the learned first Appellate Court. In view of the said fact, I do not find any patent illegality or irregularity in the order passed by the learned trial Court which may warrant any interference in the revisional jurisdiction of this Court. Revision is dismissed. (HEMANT GUPTA) JUDGE 21.12.2010 preeti