ROSHAN LAL Vs. BANWARI LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS second appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure is directed against the judgment and decree dated 17th April, 1985, passed by the learned Addl. District Judge No. 2, Alwar, camp: Behror, in Civil Appeal No. 23 of 1984, by which he confirmed the judgment and decree dated 26th February, 1984, passed by the learned Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, Behror in Civil Suit No. 9 of 1984, dismissing the suit of the plaintiff -appellants

(2.) BRIEFLY stated, the facts of the case are that the plaintiff appellants filed a civil suit for permanent injunction against the defendants -respondents in the Court of Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, Behror restraining the defendants from using electric hammer in their shop which is situated adjoining to the plaintiff's shop. It is averred in the plaint that the two shops, one owned by the plaintiffs and the another owned by the defendants, are adjoining to each other and are separated by a thin wall. The plaintiffs are doing gold smith work in the shop and the defendants have installed an electric hammer the shop. The defendants -respondents started hammering iron by heavy electric hammer. It is alleged that due to hammering of iron by heavy electric hammer, the plaintiff appellants are unable to do work in their shop or sleep on the chabutra upon the shop as electric hammer causes loud and sharp noise. It is also alleged that the noise is so loud and sharp that the plaintiffs appellants are not even able to talk with their customers. It is also the case of the plaintiffs that due to the installation of the electric hammer the entire business of the plaintiff has been ruined. It is also contended that one of the plaintiffs Roshan Lal has lost his audibility and it is also apprehended that plaintiff No. 2 may also loose his audibility.

(3.) BOTH the parties led evidence. The plaintiffs examined 11 witnesses and the defendants examined 6 witnesses. After appreciating the evidence, the learned Munsif gave a finding that there is no actionable nuisance, and the suit of the plaintiffs was dismissed.