Eschewing all the unnecessary contentions raised on behalf of the appellant based on Section 91 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the decree granted reads as follows:
“In the result, the suit is decreed as follows:
1) The defendants are restrained by a decree of permanent prohibitory injunction from carrying out quarrying works in the plaint B schedule property without proper licence and permits from the authorities concerned.
2) The plaintiff is entitled to costs in the suit.”
2. Both the courts below found that at the relevant time, the defendants did not have statutory documents required for quarrying and therefore the courts below took the view that even assuming no damage is caused to the plaintiff, allowing the defendant to carry out the quarrying work is permitting him to do an illegal act.
R.S.A. No.588 of 2014 -2-
3. The learned counsel for the appellant pointed out that he had applied for D&O licence and the application was pending and that has not been taken note of and without taking note of that fact, decree has been passed and confirmed in appeal.
4. The learned counsel apprehends that the application already filed may be rejected and that may cause prejudice to him. The learned counsel prays that if a proper application is made, he is entitled to get a licence as per law and the present decree may not stand in the way.
Observing that the decree now granted will not stand in the way of defendants making proper application for D & O licence and the authorities may consider the application in accordance with law, this appeal is disposed of.
ds //True Copy// P.A. To Judge Sd/-
P.BHAVADASAN JUDGE