Rajiv Sharma, J.;— Heard Sri S.K. Mehrotra, learned Counsel for the defendant/revisionist and Sri Sudeep Seth, learned Counsel for the plaintiffs/respondents Nos. 1 and 2 and Sri Vivek Pandey, learned Counsel for the opposite parties Nos. 3, 5 and 7 and Sri Ashok Kumar Verma, learned Counsel for the opposite party No.6 and learned Standing Counsel for opposite party No.4. Through the instant civil revision under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, defendant/revisionist challenges the order dated 2.4.2010 passed in Regular Suit No. 175 of 2001 by Civil Judge (Senior Division), Balrampur, rejecting the preliminary objection against the maintainability of the suit. Shorn off unnecessary details, the facts of the case are that plaintiffs/respondents Nos. 1 and 2, namely, Rang Nath Pandey and Vinay Kumar Pandey, have filed a suit for permanent and mandatory injunction against the defendant/revisionist, praying therein for restraining the defendant/revisionist from installing a brick kiln or its chimney upto a distance of 1.5 kms. to the east and west of plaintiffs' grove No. 779 and 833 and within a distance of 300 meters from the above plots in the direction of North and South and further prohibiting to grant licence for setting up a brick kiln or for mining of earth on plot No. 738 of the defendant/revisionist within 1.5 Kms. from the grove No. 779 and 833 in its east and west direction. The said suit was registered as Regular Suit No. 175 of 2001. Notices were issued to the defendants and in response thereof, defendant/revisionist as well as U.P. Pollution Control Board/defendant No. 5/respondent No.6 appeared and filed their written statements. According to the defendant/revisionist, in the above suit, an application for interim injunction under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure was also filed by the plaintiffs/respondents Nos. 1 and 2, which was rejected by the Trial Court vide order dated 19.5.2006. Feeling aggrieved, plaintiffs/respondents Nos. 1 and 2 has approached this Court by filing FAFO No. 604 of 2006. A Division Bench of this Court, vide judgment and order dated 17.11.2009, disposed of the said FAFO with the direction to the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Balrampur to decide Regular Suit No. 175 of 2001 by 31st May, 2010 and further directed the parties to maintain status quo as it exists on 17.11.2009, till 31st May, 2010. A Division Bench of this Court, vide judgment and order dated 17.11.2009, disposed of the said FAFO with the direction to the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Balrampur to decide Regular Suit No. 175 of 2001 by 31st May, 2010 and further directed the parties to maintain status quo as it exists on 17.11.2009, till 31st May, 2010. Thereafter, the written arguments were filed before the trial Court, stating therein that the suit be rejected under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure insofar as plaintiffs/respondents Nos. 1 and 2 are aggrieved with the orders passed by the Pollution Control Board for issuing NOC and the other orders passed in favour of the brick kiln of the revisionist. On raising the preliminary objection by the U.P. Pollution Control Board that the suit in question is barred by the provisions of under Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981, the Trial Court, after hearing the parties, vide order dated 2.4.2010, decided the said objection in favour of the plaintiffs/respondents Nos. 1 and 2 and against the defendant/revisionist. Hence the instant revision. While assailing the impugned order dated 2.4.2010, Sri S.K. Mehrotra, learned Counsel for the revisionist/defendant submits that impugned order passed by the Court below amounts to refusal to exercise jurisdiction under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure. He submits that the Court below has erred in not considering the fact that the identical objections by the plaintiffs/respondents Nos. 1 and 2 including their predessors raised before the U.P. Pollution Control Board, the Adhyaksh Zila Panchayat Gonda and the District Magistrate, Balrampur and the same had already been rejected and become final without any further proceedings prescribed under law being taken by them leaving no cause of action for the plaintiffs to raise the same objection in the present suit. But even then, the Court below proceeded with the matter and decided the question "whether the suit in question is barred by the provisions of under Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981" in favour of the plaintiffs without following the Clause (a) of Rule 11 of Order VII of the Civil of Procedure Code. But even then, the Court below proceeded with the matter and decided the question "whether the suit in question is barred by the provisions of under Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981" in favour of the plaintiffs without following the Clause (a) of Rule 11 of Order VII of the Civil of Procedure Code. Elaborating his submission, learned Counsel for the revisionist submits that the refusal by the Court below to apply the bar contained in Section 46 of the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981, holding the plaintiffs not to be aggrieved persons, is wholly erroneous and misconceived amounting to refusal to exercise jurisdiction under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure. It has also been pointed out by the learned Counsel for the revisionist that objection filed by the contesting respondents for preventing the functioning of the brick kiln on the land in dispute clearly reflects that they were bound to feel aggrieved by the action of State Pollution Board and in such a situation the remedy available to them was to prefer an appeal instead of filing the suit in question. Lastly, it has been argued that the whole issue in the instant revision revolves around the meaning of the expression " aggrieved person". According to him, if the plaintiff-respondent is held to be an aggrieved person against the order of the Pollution Board granting the 'No Objection Certificate' in favour of the revisionist, it is mandatory for him to prefer an appeal under Section 31 of the Act and his suit for permanent mandatory injunction is clearly barred under Section 46 of the Act. Placing reliance on Adi Pheroz Shah vs. H.M.Seervai; AIR 1971 SC 385 , Dharam Raj vs. State of U.P. and others [2009(27) LCD 1373)], M/s Trivedi Engineering & Industries Ltd. State of U.P. [2008(26) LCD 126], Naveen Chemicals Manufacturers and Trading Co. Ltd. Versus New Okhala Industrial Development Authority NOIDA Complex, Ghaziabad and others [1986 UPLBEC 1276] learned Counsel for the revisionist contended that the defendants are the aggrieved person as they are aggrieved by the objections raised before the Regional Officer of the U.P. Pollution Control Board, which were rejected by an order dated 18.11.2000. In oppugation to the above stand, Sri Sudeep Seth, learned Counsel for the plaintiffs/respondents Nos. 1 and 2 has contended that plaintiffs/respondents Nos. 1 and 2 are farmers. In oppugation to the above stand, Sri Sudeep Seth, learned Counsel for the plaintiffs/respondents Nos. 1 and 2 has contended that plaintiffs/respondents Nos. 1 and 2 are farmers. On Khasra No. 779 and 833 situated at Village Kapsaura, Mauza Pandari, Pargana Tehsil and District Balrampur, there is orchard bearing mango trees, sheesham trees and sangaun trees and the said khasra plots are owned by the respondents Nos. 1 and 2. On Khasra Plot No. 738 situated at village Gudwahi, Mauza Padri, Pargana Tehsil & District Balrampur, earlier there was a brick kiln of Sudama Mal, which was closed down in the year 1990-1991. After closure of the Brick Kiln, the respondents Nos. 1 and 2 had planted mango trees and other trees in the orchard. After the year 1990-1991, no brick kiln was set up on Khasra Plot No. 738. Sri Seth further submits that since the revisionist had erected a chimney for operating brick kiln on Khasra Plot No. 738 in the year 2000, as such, the respondents Nos. 1 and 2 preferred objections to the opposite parties Nos. 3 to 7 but neither any action was taken nor opportunity of hearing was granted and as such, the respondents Nos. 1 and 2 had approached this Court by filing a writ petition No. 6229 (M/B) of 2000. A Division Bench of this Court, vide judgment and order dated 22.12.2000, disposed of the petition with direction to the Collector, Balrampur to dispose of the representation within three weeks. In compliance thereof, the District Magistrate decided the representation of the respondents Nos. 1 and 2 and rejected the same vide orders dated 9/10.10.2000 and 27.12.2000. Feeling aggrieved, the respondents Nos. 1 and 2 preferred writ petition No. 1098 (M/B) of 2001. After hearing the parties, a Division Bench of this Court, vide judgment and order dated 14.3.2001, while observing that if the respondents Nos. 1 and 2 are aggrieved by the finding recorded by the District Magistrate, they have a remedy of filing a civil suit and seek appropriate relief challenging the order, dismissed the writ petition. However, it was clarified that in case the respondents Nos. 1 and 2 approaches the appropriate forum by filing civil suit or any other proceedings, the observation made in the order shall not influence the mind of the authority concerned. Accordingly, the respondents Nos. However, it was clarified that in case the respondents Nos. 1 and 2 approaches the appropriate forum by filing civil suit or any other proceedings, the observation made in the order shall not influence the mind of the authority concerned. Accordingly, the respondents Nos. 1 and 2 filed regular suit No. 175 of 2001, as stated hereinabove, for issuance of permanent injunction so as to restrain the revisionist from operating brick kiln within prohibited distance and other consequential relief. Inviting my attention towards the provisions of Section 21,25,26,31 and 46 of the Act, learned Counsel for the contesting respondents submitted that the entire scheme of the Act revolves around and concerns the State Pollution Board and the person who establishes or operates an industrial plant. In exercise of its powers, the State Board grants or refuse consent to a person to establish or operate the industrial plant; obtain information from the occupier or any person carrying on any industry, take samples of air or emission for analysis for such industry, hence the person who establishes or operates any industrial plants, can be said to be aggrieved person by the orders made by the State Pollution Board and he can prefer an appeal under Section 31 of the Act, 1981. Clarifying further, it has been submitted that while granting or refusing consent, the matter is in between the State Pollution Board and the industry and no third person has any right to object or be given personal hearing by the State Board in the matter relating to grant or refusal of consent. Therefore, the answering opposite parties are not the person aggrieved for the purposes of Section 31 of the Act and to substantiate its arguments has relied upon number of cases and stated that the case law relied upon by the revisionist i.e. A.R.Punnuswami Vs. Thoppalm, and Navin Chemicals are not applicable as it does not discuss bar of jurisdiction whereas Triveni Engineering and Industries vs. State of U.P. stands against the Revisionist for the reason that in this case it has been held that only occupier of a factory can file revision against the modification of sugar requirement by Cane Commissioner and no other person can file. Sri Seth further submits that though U.P. Pollution Control Board filed a written statement raising the ground of suit being barred by Section 34 and 41 of the Specific Relief Act and Section 46 of the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 but the revisionist has not taken the said objection in its written statement. Therefore, the revision on this premise is not tenable insofar as the plea, which has not been raised in the trial Court, cannot be raised in the revision and revisionist cannot be treated as a person aggrieved by the order dated 2.4.2010 passed by the Trial Court on the preliminary issue on bar of jurisdiction, raised by the U.P. Pollution Control Board. Thus, there is no infirmity in the impugned order dated 2.4.2010 passed by the trial Court. A perusal of the plaint, reveals that Kshetriya Adhikari, of the U.P. Pollution Control Board has been impleaded as defendant no.5 and a relief has been claimed not to grant any licence in favour of the revisionist and in case any licence or permission has been granted, same may be cancelled/set-aside. At this juncture, it is relevant to mention that the plaintiff of the suit had earlier filed objection dated 10.10.2000 before the Kshetriya Adhikari praying therein to stop the revisionist from setting up his brick kiln on the land in suit. Thus the reliefs as claimed in the Objection have been sought in the in the aforesaid suit. The said objection was rejected by the Regional Officer vide its order dated 18.11.2000 and thereafter No Objection Certificate was issued to the revisionist for running the brick kiln in question subject to the conditions enumerated therein. Though The word "aggrieved person" has not been defined in the Air(Prevention and Control of Pollution)Act, 1981 but Section 31 of the Act says that any person aggrieved by an order made by the State Board under the Act may prefer an appeal. At this juncture it would be relevant to point out that a "legal right", means an entitlement arising out of legal rules. Thus, it may be defined as an advantage, or a benefit conferred upon a person by the rule of law. At this juncture it would be relevant to point out that a "legal right", means an entitlement arising out of legal rules. Thus, it may be defined as an advantage, or a benefit conferred upon a person by the rule of law. The expression, "person aggrieved" does not include a person who suffers from a psychological or an imaginary injury; a person aggrieved must therefore, necessarily be one, whose right or interest has been adversely affected or jeopardised. To put it differently, it means a person, who is injured or he is adversely affected in a legal sense In A.Subhash Babu vs. State of A.P. AIR 2011 SC 3031 , the Apex Court held: "The expression ''aggrieved person' denotes an elastic and an elusive concept. It cannot be confined within the bounds of a rigid, exact and comprehensive definition. Its scope and meaning depends on diverse, variable factors such as the content and intent of the statute of which contravention is alleged, the specific circumstances of the case, the nature and extent of complainant's interest and the nature and the extent of the prejudice or injury suffered by the complainant." From the contents of the objections, it is imminently clear that objectors/plaintiffs have raised their grievance against the setting up of the brick kiln by the revisionist. Rejection of the objection and grant of 'No Objection Certificate" in favour of the brick kiln owners was bound to create a grievance of the plaintiffs/objectors and, therefore, it is wrong to say that plaintiffs are not the aggrieved persons. In these circumstances, the court below has not examined the matter taking into consideration the law propounded in this regard by the Apex Court and this Court. In the proceedings before the Civil Court, the U.P. Pollution Control Board, Faizabad has filed a written statement wherein while raising the issue of Bar under Section 46 of the Act, it was also mentioned that the defendant no.1 has been operating his brick kiln since 1980 and was continuously issued licence and No Objection Certificate under the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution )Act, 1981. In a supplementary affidavit filed by the revisionist it has been indicated that brick-kiln was established 20 years ago and is being maintained in accordance with the bye-laws of the District Panchayat while the grove came into existence according to the revenue records about 3 years ago and according to the spot report 8 years ago. It has been asserted by the contesting respondents that the Pollution Board has raised the ground of suit being barred by Section 34 and 41 of the Specific Relief Act and Section 46 of the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 but the revisionist has not taken the said objection. In this regard, I would like to mention that written arguments on issues nos. 6 and 8 were filed on behalf of the defendant no.1 on 25.3.2010 raising the said plea and as such it is incorrect to say that such a plea has been raised for the first time before this Court. Since the matter is being remitted for passing a fresh order, for the reasons discussed above, I am not touching all aspects of the matter raised in this civil revision, leaving it for the Trial Court to decide. Taking the holistic view of the matter, the impugned order dated 2.4.2010 passed by the Civil Judge (Senior Division) Balrampur is hereby set-aside and the Civil Judge is directed to decide the preliminary objection afresh. Parties to the suit will be free to raise all the pleas which have been raised before this Court and may file any affidavit/document in support of their case. The revision stands allowed in part. _____________