Judgment:
Milap Chand Jain, J.
1. This revision petition has been failed against the order of the learned Additional District Judge, Nohar (Sri Ganganagar) dated December 12, 1990 by which he has dismissed the appeal and confirmed the order of the learned Munsif, Nohar dated December 8, 1987 directing closure of the defendent-petitioner's Ice Factory and Cotton gining Machines (Charkhies) the facts of the case giving rise to this revision petition may summarised thus.
2. The plaintiff-non-petitioners have filed a suit for injunction in the court of the Munsif, Nohar with the allegations, in short, that the defendant has installed an Ice factory on his adjacent land and as a result thereof, a great nuisance has been created and it has become difficult for them to live in their houses. An application for temporary injection was moved on October 28, 1986. With the consent of the parties, an order was passed on May 12, 1987 to the effect that the defendant-petitioner would not further increase the area of his roof and would also not raise any construction thereon. Another application was moved on November 3, 1987 under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2, and Section 151, C.P.C. with the additional avertments that after said order dated May 12, 1987, the defendent has installed several cotton gining machines (charkhies) near the wall of the plaintiff-non-petitioner No. 2 and as a result therof, dust emit therefrom and it has become difficult for the inmates of their houses to take breath, to sleep and to live comfortably and more cracks have appeared in the walls. The defendant-petitioner filed his reply simply denying the averments. After hearing the parties, the learned trial court directed the defendent petitioner to close his Ice Factory and Cotton Ginning Machines by its order dated December 12, 1987. An appeal was preferred and it was dismissed as said above.
3. It has been contended by the learned Counsel for the defendant-petitioner that previously a suit was filed by the plaintiff-non-petitioner No. 2 Hanuman Singh and it was withdrawn by him. He also contended that no fresh order could be passed on the second application as it has been moved with the same allegations. He further contended that the Ice Factory and the Cotton Gining machines have been installed with the permission of the Municipal Board, Nohar and the plaintiff-non-petitioners are misusing the process of the court with some ulterior motive. He lastly contended that the plaintiff-non-petitioners have failed to prove actual nuisance.
4. He relied upon Arjun Singh v. Mohindra Kumar and Ors. : [1964]5SCR946 and Madan Lal Khuteta v. Badri Narayan A.I.R. 1988 Rajasthan 61.
5. Learned Counsel for the plaintiff-non-petitioners duly supported the orders Tinder challenge. He also contended that this Court while hearing the revision under section 115, C.P.C. has very limited jurisdiction and no material illegality or irregularity has been committed in the exercise of jurisdiction by any Court. He lastly contended that the defendant-petitioner violated the previous order by installing cotton ginning machines and creating more actionable nuisance.
6. It is clear from a perusal of the two applications moved under Order 39, Rules 1 and 2, C.P.C. whose certified copies were produced during the arguments, that in the second application dated November 3, 1987 additional averments have been made his it regarding the installation of several Cotton Ginning Machines (Chakhies) near the wall of the house of the plaintiff-non-petitioner No. 2 Hanuman Singh. The trial court has observed in its order dated December 8, 1987 that the Commissioner found that the said Cotton Ginning machines create great noise and also vibrations in the walls of Hanuman Singh's house when they function and these facts are duly noted by the Commissioner in his report. It has further been observed that neither the parties nor the court was fully aware of the consequences of the functioning of the Ice Factory when the previous order dated May 12, 1987 was passed. Under these facts and circumstances, the trial court passed the said temporary injuction on December 8, 1987. The learned Additional District Judge confirmed the order. No material irregularity or illegality has been committed by the learned Additional District Judge in confirming the order of the trial court. It has been observed in Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd. v. Ajit Prasad : (1972)ILLJ170SC para 5, as follows:
In our opinion the High Court had no jurisdiction to interfere with the order of the first appellate court. It is not the conclusion of the High Court that the first appellate court had no Jurisdiction to make the order that it made. The order of the first appellate court may be right or wrong; may be in accordance with law or may not be in accordance with law; but one thing is clear that it had jurisdiction to make that order. It is not the case that the first appellate court exercised its jurisdiction, either illegally or with material irregularity. That being so, the High Court could not have invoked its jurisdiction under Section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code-See the decisions of this Court in Pandurang Dhoni v. Maruti Hari Jadhav : [1966]1SCR102 and D.L.F. Housing & Construction Co. (P) Ltd., New Delhi v. Sarup Singh : [1970]2SCR368 .
7. Consequently, the revision petition is dismissed with costs.