ISMAIL MUSABHAI MEMON Vs. ABDUL AZIZ ANVAR INAMDAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appeal is filed against the judgment and decree of Regular Civil Suit No. 13 of 2004 which was pending in the Court of the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Nandurbar and also against the judgment and order of Regular Civil Appeal No. 13 of 2007 which was pending in the Court of the District Judge -1 Nandurbar. Relief of injunction is granted against the appellant to prevent the nuisance by the trial Court and the decision is confirmed by the first appellate Court. Both sides are heard.

(2.) THE plaintiff and the co -sharer are owners of property bearing CTS No. 2407/1 -A situated at Nandurbar. It is contended by the plaintiff that the defendant is in possession of property bearing CTS No. 2407/1 -B situated adjacent to the property of the plaintiff and the defendant is illegally running a saw mill on property CTS No. 2407/1 -B. It is the case of the plaintiff that the defendant is not having necessary licence to run the saw mill. It is contended that due to machinery of saw mill there is noise pollution and the machinery is causing vibrations also and it is also nuisance to the plaintiff. It is contended that the defendant is keeping his wood on the property of the plaintiff and it is also creating nuisance. It is the case of the plaintiff that he is residing in the building constructed on property CTS No. 2407/1 -A and due to vibrations caused by the machinery of the defendant danger is created to the building of the plaintiff. It is contended that due to aforesaid vibrations and noise the plaintiff is suffering ill -health and he is not in a position to tolerate this nuisance as he has become old.

(3.) THE defendant contested the suit by filing written statement. He has contended that he is doing the business of saw mill on the property CTS No. 2407/1 -B since 1992 and right from beginning he is holding necessary licence of competent authority to do this business. It is contended that his machinery is not creating noise pollution and also the vibrations and no actionable wrong, nuisance as such is there. It is contended that due to delay caused in taking action, due to latches and acquiescence also the plaintiff is not entitled to get any relief.