CHOPRA WEAVING MILLS AND ORS. Vs. PYARE LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE question for determination in this appeal is whether the noise caused by the Weaving Factory of the Appellant in Gali Panjewali, Katra Khazana, District Amritsar, constitutes an actionable nuisance?

(2.) PYARE Lal brought a suit against the proprietors of the hopra Weaving Mills situated in a residential locality at Amritsar, namely, Katra Khazana, to restrain them from operating their power -loom weaving factory as it was a source of nuisance to the Plaintiff and members of his family whose rest and repose were seriously interfered with. A large number of pleas were raised by the Defendants and the substantial question on which he parties joined issue was whether the working of the factory amounted to an actionable nuisance. The learned trial Judge after examination of the evidence adduced on behalf of the parties and inspection of the spot reached the conclusion that the working of the factory was an actionable nuisance. In the view of the trial Court the factory in which the power -looms were worked was divided only by party -wall from the house of the Plaintiff and vibrations and noise resulted in a nuisance which the Plaintiff is justified in getting restrained or at least abated. Considering that the noise was most intolerable at night hours, the trial Court granted an injunction to the effect that the Chopra Weaving Mills would cease working between 9 p.m. and 7 a.m. The proprietors of the Chopra Weaving Mills feeling aggrieved preferred an appeal before the Senior Sub -Judge who affirming the finding of the trial Judge maintained the injunction granted by the first Court.

(3.) MR . Sachar on behalf of the Respondent on the other hand submits that if the Plaintiff is given freedom to abate the noise in the manner he chooses it would lead to an unending litigation. He places reliance on a Division Bench decision of the Madras High Court in Sadasiva Chetty v. Rangappa Rajoo, A.I.R. 1919 Mad. 1185, where the owner of an oil mill close to a dwelling house was absolutely restrained and it was held that the owner of the house was entitled to ask for prohibition of the working of the mill, where the nuisance cannot be abated. From the evidence and inspection note of the Court it appears that the nuisance in the present case is of a nature which cannot be moderated by mechanical contrivances. It seems to me that as the mill had been working for many years, no improvements can be expected if the matter is left to the will of the owners of the factory.