ABBIREDDI SAROJINI Vs. BATCHU CHINA KAMALAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) On 25.1.1999 this Court made the following order:

(2.) The substantial questions of law raised in (a) and (b) of ground No.6 read as hereunder:

(3.) Sri M.Ram Mohan, learned counsel representing the appellants had taken this Court through the findings recorded by the Court of first instance and also the findings recorded by the appellate Court and would maintain that in a case of private nuisance, the aspects of precautions to be taken and the conditions to be imposed while balancing the interest of the parties had not been considered at all and simply on the strength of the oral evidence of PW.1, certain findings had been recorded and the suit had been decreed granting perpetual injunction from causing the alleged nuisance. The learned counsel while making his elaborate submissions pointed out to the report of the Commissioner and the objections made thereto and would maintain that the report of the Commissioner may not be of much help. The counsel also placed strong reliance on several decisions in this regard.