GOTHAM CONSTRUCTION CO Vs. AMULYA KRISHNA GHOSE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal by the defendant, Gotham Construction Co., a firm, against whom the trial judge, and on appeal, the appellate judge as well, have granted a decree, permanently restraining it "from creating any sound nuisance in the workshop (of the firm) at 41 Jhautola Road arising out of hammering on steel or any other plates".

(2.) The appellant's workshop at 41 Jhautola Road is one for "building the bodies of motor vehicles", as the averment in the second paragraph of the plaint is--an averment which the sixth paragraph of the appellant's written statement admits to be "substantially correct". Such is the admission too of the appellant firm's partner, Shri Haridas Goswami, as the 3rd witness for the defendant, in his evidence at the trial. Jhautola Road runs north to south. On the east of the road is "41" with the controversial workshop and also the residence of Shri Haridas Goswami and his family. Shri Bhudeb Sankhanidhi, the 3rd plaintiff (now the 3rd respondent), a director or Lalmohan Saha Sankhanidhi and Co., with its head office in India, lives at the relevant time at 40 Jhautola Road on "the contiguous north and east" of which is "41". 47 Jhautola Road is the house where the first two plaintiffs (now the first two respondents) live. The first one is Shri Amulya Krishna Ghosh who deals in, and imports, printing machinery. The second one is Shri Goutam Chakravorty, a barrister, occupying as a tenant the ground-story of "47". "41", as noticed, is on the east or jhautola Road, running north to south. "47" is on the west. According to Shri Goutam Chakravorty, the 4th witness of the plaintiffs and himself the second plaintiff, "41" is to the south-east of "47". Or is it north-west P That is what Shri Amulya Ghosh, the 8th witness of the plaintiffs and himself the first plaintiff, says: his house (which is "47", the same as Shri Goutam Chakravorty's) is to south-west of "41". Which means that "41" is on the north-east of "47". Obviously, there is some confusion somewhere; either a slip on the part of either of the two Shri Goutam Chakravorty and Shri Amulya Ghosh or a recording mistake. But that does not matter. What do matter are the following:

(3.) This, then, is the lie of the place where the litigating parties live and one of them, the human agency of the appellant firm carries on business too as the builder of the motor coaches and vehicles. In adjudicating a cause, the instant litigation is like, resting on noise and nuisance, as alleged by the suing party, the respondents before me, such is the milieu a court cannot simply do without. There is a little more yet. And that little will unfold itself, as I state the respective case the parties come to court with--which I now proceed to do.