JUDGMENT : (Prayer: Second Appeal is filed under Section 100 of C.P.C, against the Judgment and Decree of the Subordinate Judge, Thiruchengode, allowing the A.S.No.64 of 2008 dated 27.11.2008 against the Judgment and Decree of the District Munsif Court, Thiruchengode passed in O.S.No.93 of 99 dated 26.09.2005. Second Appeal is filed under Section 100 of C.P.C, against the Judgment and Decree of the Subordinate Judge, Thiruchengode in A.S.No.63 of 2008 dated 27.11.2008 reversing the Judgment and decree of the District Munsif Court, Thiruchengode passed in O.S.No.280 of 89 dated 26.09.2005.) (Heard through video conferencing) 1. The Second Appeal in 717 of 2009 has been filed against the judgment and Decree of the learned Subordinate Judge, Thiruchengode, allowing the A.S.No.64 of 2008 dated 27.11.2008 against the Judgment and decree of the District Munsif Court, Thiruchengode passed in O.S.No.93 of 99 dated 26.09.2005 and the Second Appeal in 768 of 2009 has been filed against the Judgment and Decree of the learned Subordinate Judge, Thiruchengode in A.S.No.63 of 2008 dated 27.11.2008 reversing the Judgment and decree of the District Munsif Court, Thiruchengode passed in O.S.No.280 of 89 dated 26.09.2005. 2. The appellant is the defendant in the suit. For the sake of convenience the appellant will be referred as the defendant and the 1st respondent will be referred as the plaintiff during this course of the discussion. Since the issues involved in these appeals are similar in nature, with the consent of the parties, they are disposed through a common judgment. 3. The avernments of the parties in brief: The plaintiff is the owner of the house bearing door No.2/100 A, in main road, Velagoundampatty. She is residing in the ground floor and let out the first floor for rent. The defendant is the owner of the adjacent building bearing door No.2/100. In the said house the defendant was running a flour and oil mill from March, 1988 under the name and style of “Deepa Arul Oil Mill” under a license. For running this shop, she has installed 2 rotaries, 2 flour machines and grinder, all run by a 15 H.P. Electric Motor. She is also running a decorticator. All the machineries of the defendant have been installed in the residential area which is thickly populated. And the defendant runs the machines round the clock. For running this shop, she has installed 2 rotaries, 2 flour machines and grinder, all run by a 15 H.P. Electric Motor. She is also running a decorticator. All the machineries of the defendant have been installed in the residential area which is thickly populated. And the defendant runs the machines round the clock. Because of that the plaintiff needs to put up with the enormous and defending noise, created by the machines. Apart from that a cloud of flour and chilly dust spread throughout the area including the residential part of the plaintiff and chilly creates pungent smell. The inmates of the adjacent houses may not even able to converse with normal sound. This also caused health hazards to the nearby residents including the plaintiff. The children cannot study amidst of noise and the noise vibrations affect the windows and doors of the buildings. Hence the plaintiff has filed a suit for injunction for restraining the defendant from causing any nuisance to the plaintiff by operating the machineries in the suit properties. 4. The written statement of the defendant in brief is as under: The defendant has filed a written statement by stating that she is running the Flour and Oil Mill by obtaining due license from the concerned authorities. That the defendant invested huge money and she has carried on her business from March-1998. It is false to allege that the defendant’s machinery creates huge sound. It is also false to say that the noise was unbearable and that the neighbours are affected with the health hazards. Having kept quiet for several years the plaintiff has filed this suit for injunction. Hence the suit has to be dismissed. 5. The defendant himself has filed a suit in OS.No.93/1999, against the plaintiff and the officers of the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board Department for the relief of Permanent Injunction from disconnecting the Service Connection given to the Mill. That has been contested by the Electricity Board. However, it is stated in their statement that they have not received any request for disconnection and the defendant was paying the electricity charges regularly and hence there is no necessity to disconnect the Service Connection. It is submitted that the Service Connection given to the defendant was to run 25 H.P. Motor for the Flour Mill. However, it is stated in their statement that they have not received any request for disconnection and the defendant was paying the electricity charges regularly and hence there is no necessity to disconnect the Service Connection. It is submitted that the Service Connection given to the defendant was to run 25 H.P. Motor for the Flour Mill. But during the pendency of the suit, the license given to the defendant to run the Mill in the premises was cancelled by the Block Development Officer. Consequently, the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board has also initiated proceedings to disconnect the service connection. 6. It is the submission of the Electricity Department that the Pollution Control Authority also inspected the mill and found that there was air and noise pollution and sent the copy of the order to Block Development Officer, Ellachipalayam. In the same spirit, the District Health Officer has also inspected the premises and submitted the report to the Commissioner Panchayat Union stating that there was noise and air pollution caused by the operation of the Flour and Oil Mill. As these authorities had recommended to cancel the license, the license was cancelled and consequently the Electricity Department had disconnected the Service Connection. The statement filed by the Electricity Department was adopted by the Commissioner, Ellachipalayam who was also impleaded as a party to the said suit. 7. After perusing the pleadings of the respective parties the learned trial Judge has framed the following issues in the respective suits: “In OS.No.280/89: “TAMIL” “In OS.No.93/1999:- “TAMIL” 8. A joint trial was conducted by the learned trial Judge and during the course of the trial, on the side of the plaintiff three witnesses have been examined as P.W.1 to 3 and 21 documents have been marked as Ex.A.1 to A.21. On the side of the defendant also, one witness has been examined as D.W.1 and Ex.B1 to B4 have been marked. The report of the Commissioner, Plans and the reply of the Commissioner have been marked as Ex.C1 to C4. 9. After conclusion of the trial, the learned trial Judge has dismissed the suit filed by the plaintiff in O.S.No.280/89 and allowed the suit filed by the defendant in O.S.No.93/99. Aggrieved over that, the plaintiff has preferred the First Appeals before the learned Principal Judge, Thiruchengode in A.S.Nos.63/2008 and 64/2008 respectively. 9. After conclusion of the trial, the learned trial Judge has dismissed the suit filed by the plaintiff in O.S.No.280/89 and allowed the suit filed by the defendant in O.S.No.93/99. Aggrieved over that, the plaintiff has preferred the First Appeals before the learned Principal Judge, Thiruchengode in A.S.Nos.63/2008 and 64/2008 respectively. After hearing these appeals, the learned First Appellate Judge has allowed both the appeals through a common Judgment. Aggrieved over the said judgment the defendant has preferred these appeals in S.A.Nos.768 & 717 of 2009 and these second appeals have been admitted on the following Substantial Questions of Law:- i. In SA.No.717 of 2009: “Whether the judgment of the First Appellate Court in dismissing the suit filed for the permanent injunction against the official respondents 2 to 4 does not have any legal basis?” ii. In SA.No.768 of 2009: “Whether the First Appellate Court is right in accepting that the respondent /plaintiff has got a legal right to file the suit for permanent injunction on the basis of the cause of action alleged in the suit?” 10. Heard the arguments advanced by Mr.M.Muniruddin Sherif, learned counsel for the appellant/defendant and Mr.N.Manoharan, learned counsel for the first respondent/plaintiff in both the Second Appeals and also perused the materials available on record. 11. The learned counsel for the defendant who is the appellant herein has submitted that the plaintiff does not have any legal right to file the suit before the Civil Court. Civil Suits of this nature are barred under Sec.46 of the AIR (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981. It is contended by the learned counsel for the defendant that the plaintiff should make her complaints only before the Pollution Control Authorities and she ought not to have filed the suits before the Civil Court. 12. It is further submitted that the learned First Appellate Judge has not appreciated the facts and evidence in a proper and perspective before dismissing the suit filed by the defendant against the plaintiff and others. 12. It is further submitted that the learned First Appellate Judge has not appreciated the facts and evidence in a proper and perspective before dismissing the suit filed by the defendant against the plaintiff and others. The learned counsel for the defendant cited the following decisions in respect of his above contention are listed hereunder: sl.no Case Reported in 1 A.R.Ponnusamy Vs.Thoppalan 2003 (2) L.W.631 2 D.Thomas Vs.N.Thomas & ors 1999 (2) MLJ 260 3 Radhey Shiam Vs.Gur Prasad Serma AIR 1978 ALL 86 4 Gotham Construction Vs.Amulya Krishna Ghose & ors AIR 1968 CAL 91 5 Ramlila Maidan Incident In re 2015(5) SCC 1 6 Union of India Vs.Ibrahim Uddin & anr 2012(8) SCC 148 13. The learned counsel for the plaintiff (respondent) submitted that since the defendant is running the Mill without proper license and causing private and public nuisance in the vicinity, the plaintiff has got a cause of action to file a Civil suit and the First Appellate Court is right in allowing both the appeals. 14. During the pendency of these appeals, the learned counsel for the defendant filed a Civil Miscellaneous Petition to receive additional documents in order to show that her license was renewed by the Ellachipalayam Panchayat in the year 2012. The defendant has produced the proceedings of Ellachipalayam Panchayat dated 12.12.2012 and three receipts for paying the permit fee along with this petition and requested to receive those documents as additional evidence. The plaintiff has objected the same by stating that the defendant did not give any acceptable reason as to why these documents were not produced at the time when the suit and the First Appeal were pending. It is further submitted that those documents are not relevant and they have been filed just to fill up the lacunae. 15. Discussion for S.Q. No.1 in SA.No.768/2009: So far as the facts in respect of the allegations of noise and air pollution are concerned, the First Appellate Court is the final authority to record its findings on that. The only question before this Court is to see whether the plaintiff has got a legal right to invoke the jurisdiction of the Civil Courts. 16. The relief granted by the First Appellate Court is based on its findings that the Flour and Oil Mill run by the defendant has caused a lot of noise and air pollution to the plaintiff and others. 16. The relief granted by the First Appellate Court is based on its findings that the Flour and Oil Mill run by the defendant has caused a lot of noise and air pollution to the plaintiff and others. In fact the Block Development Officer of Ellachipalayam has cancelled the license already granted to the defendant on the basis of the report received from the Pollution Control Authorities. Consequently, the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board has also disconnected the Service Connection given to the 25 H.P. motor run by the defendant. 17. The defendant has challenged Ex.A9 cancellation order before the Appellate Authority and it passed an order Ex.A.10, by confirming the order of cancellation. Even the second appeal filed by the defendant was also dismissed. So all these orders would show that the defendant was running the Mill by violating the conditions imposed by the licensing authority. 18. Since the defendant continued to run the Mill despite the license was cancelled, criminal proceedings were initiated against her and in which she was imposed with fine vide Ex.P.14. Even when the license was renewed at some point of time, again it was cancelled by the Commissioner of Ellachipalayam. There is more than sufficient evidence available on record to show that the defendant was violating the conditions of her license and she was running the Mill and doing certain activities which were not covered by the license already granted to her. Even after such cancellations, the defendant did not stop causing nuisance to the public. In the meetings of the Panchayat Council also, a resolution has been passed to cancel the license given to the defendant's mill and that it should be shifted to somewhere. 19. The authorities including the District Industrial Centre have consistently refused permission to run the defendant’s Mill, as it was causing nuisance and pollution in the residential area. However it is claimed by the defendant that these matters ought to have been dealt by the Pollution Control Board and other authorities and the plaintiff has got no right to file the suit. 20. By way of filing this Suit, the plaintiff has not challenged any orders passed by the Pollution Control Board or its Appellate Authorities. It was not the claim of the defendant that she had obtained pollution control clearance, and the plaintiff had pulled her to Court. 20. By way of filing this Suit, the plaintiff has not challenged any orders passed by the Pollution Control Board or its Appellate Authorities. It was not the claim of the defendant that she had obtained pollution control clearance, and the plaintiff had pulled her to Court. In fact the defendant did not even prove that the type of the Mill which she was running in the premises is the one which would not fall under the purview of the Pollution Control Board and hence it does not require any permission. 21. It is true that Sec.46 of the Special Act bars the jurisdiction of the Civil Courts to entertain any suit or proceedings in respect of any matter which an Appellate Authority constituted through the Act is empowered to determine. As per Sec.31 of the Act any person aggrieved by the order made by the State Board can prefer an Appeal before the Appellate Authority within a period of 30 days. But in this case, the defendant has not produced any order passed in his favour by the Pollution Control Board. Had that been an order of that nature then no doubt the aggrieved party should invoke the jurisdiction of the Appellate Tribunal. In the absence of any issues brought before the Pollution Control Board and any order passed thereon, the jurisdiction of the Civil Court cannot be blankly denied. 22. The right of the plaintiff to invoke the jurisdiction of the Civil Court to protect her peaceful enjoyment of her residence by way of filing a suit is like any other ordinary suit. Unless a duty is cast upon the Pollution Control Board to pass an orders on any of the applications filed before it, one cannot simply say that the jurisdiction of the Civil Court is barred in all the matters where environmental disturbances are caused. The defendants' Mill was causing noise and dust pollution in the residential area. Since the plaintiff is affected as a nearby resident, she has filed the suit for injunction to restrain the defendant from running her Mill and causing nuisance. The remedy sought by the plaintiff by way of filing a suit for permanent injunction from restraining the defendant from causing nuisance to the plaintiff is a remedy for preventing a civil wrong. This would not preclude the Pollution Control Board, from issuing directions for closure of the Mill. 23. The remedy sought by the plaintiff by way of filing a suit for permanent injunction from restraining the defendant from causing nuisance to the plaintiff is a remedy for preventing a civil wrong. This would not preclude the Pollution Control Board, from issuing directions for closure of the Mill. 23. Because of the above reasons, the citations cited by the learned counsel for the appellant are not applicable to the facts of this case. The Tamil Nadu Electricity Board has disconnected the Service Connection on the basis of the letter addressed to it by the Commissioner of Panchayat, Ellachipalayam, by stating that the defendant was running the Mill by violating the conditions of license. 24. The defendant has filed the license given to her along with the receipt for paying the permit fee and sought the permission of the Court to receive those documents as additional evidence. The records would show that the license given to the defendant was cancelled because she was violating some conditions and by installing heavy motor machineries beyond the permitted capacity. On the strength of any license that has been granted by the local Panchayat for running a Mill subject to certain conditions and by running a motor if any within the permissible capacity, the defendant cannot claim that she has a right to run the Flour Mill and Oil Mill by installing High Power motors. Though the change in circumstances can also be looked in a suit, a document showing irrelevant circumstances cannot be received as an additional evidence for the purpose of this Appeal. Hence the Substantial Questions of Law in SA.No.768/2009 is answered against the Appellant/defendant. 25. It is seen from the series of documents filed on the side of the plaintiff that the respondents have inspected the premises of the defendant where she was running the Flour and Oil Mill and found out the gross violations committed by her. After inspecting the nature of the nuisance and health hazard caused by the defendants' Mill, the Commissioner of Panchayat has cancelled the license. Since the defendant did not abide the rules even after cancellation and continued to run the Mill, at the request of the Commissioner Local Panchayat, the authorities of the Electricity Department have initiated steps to cancel the Service Connection. Since the defendant did not abide the rules even after cancellation and continued to run the Mill, at the request of the Commissioner Local Panchayat, the authorities of the Electricity Department have initiated steps to cancel the Service Connection. So the action taken by the official respondents 2 to 4 for the reasons recorded by them are well in accordance with the rules and regulations for issuing the license. Hence I find no factual or legal infirmity in confirming the dismissal of the suit filed for permanent injunction against the official respondents 2 to 4. Thus the substantial questions of law in SA.No.717/2009 is also answered against the Appellant/defendant. In the result, these two Second Appeals stand dismissed. Accordingly, the common Judgment and Decree passed by the learned Subordinate Judge, Thiruchengode, in A.S.No.63 of 2008 and A.S.No.64 of 2008 dated 27.11.2008 is confirmed. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are also closed.