JUDGMENT L.N. Mittal, J. (Oral).:- Defendants have filed instant revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging judgment dated 9.1.2008 passed by learned District Judge, Patiala. 2. Respondents no. 1 to 3 filed suit in representative capacity under Order 1 Rule 8 of the Code of Civil Procedure (in short, CPC) seeking permanent injunction restraining defendants from installing machinery for manufacturing of combines and from commencing manufacturing of combines in the site known as M/s New Hira Combine alleging that the inhabitants of the residential area would suffer on account of nuisance and pollution that would be created by the manufacturing unit. 3. The defendants, interalia, pleaded that the suit has become infructuous as manufacturing process started in August, 2006 i.e. before the filing of the suit. 4. Along with suit, the plaintiffs moved application for temporary injunction under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 read with section 151 CPC seeking to restrain the defendants from running the manufacturing unit at the disputed site during the pendency of the suit. 5. Learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Nabha vide order dated 24.3.2007 dismissed plaintiffs’ application for temporary injunction. However, appeal preferred by the plaintiffs has been allowed by learned District Judge, Patiala vide impugned judgment dated 9.1.2008 and the defendants have been restrained from manufacturing combines etc. in the disputed site and from creating nuisance and pollution. Feeling aggrieved, the defendants have preferred the instant revision petition. 6. Punjab Pollution Control Board has also been impleaded as respondent no. 4 to the instant revision petition vide order dated 18.2.2008. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case file. 8. Some persons of the locality of Hira Mahal Colony, Nabha where the unit was set up by the defendants filed CWP No. 16963 of 2007. In that case, Punjab Pollution Control Board stated in its reply that vide order dated 3.1.2008, the Board directed closure of the unit in question which was established by defendants herein (respondents no. 5 and 6 in the writ petition). Counsel representing said respondents no. 5 and 6 in the writ petition pointed out that pursuant to injunction order passed by civil court (impugned judgment of lower appellate court) manufacturing activity in the unit in question had been closed. In view thereof the said writ petition was disposed of. 5 and 6 in the writ petition). Counsel representing said respondents no. 5 and 6 in the writ petition pointed out that pursuant to injunction order passed by civil court (impugned judgment of lower appellate court) manufacturing activity in the unit in question had been closed. In view thereof the said writ petition was disposed of. The petitioners now cannot turn around and say that they have a right to run the unit in the disputed site. Moreover, when Punjab Pollution Control Board has passed order dated 3.1.2008 directing closure of the unit being run by the defendants at the disputed site on account of pollution being created by the unit, the defendants prima facie have no right to run the said unit there. There is no material on record to depict that the defendants have even challenged the said order dated 3.1.2008 passed by Punjab Pollution Control Board in any proceedings. For this reason as well, the defendants have no right to run the manufacturing unit on the disputed site. Even otherwise, the defendants set up their unit in residential area for manufacturing combines etc. Obviously it would create nuisance and pollution for the residents of the area. 9. For the reasons aforesaid, I find no illegality in the impugned judgment of the lower appellate court. The revision petition is accordingly dismissed. However, nothing observed hereinbefore shall be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the suit. --------------