RSA No.4026 of 2010 (O&M) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA No.4026 of 2010 (O&M). Decided on: April 27, 2011. Daljinder Singh. .. Appellant VERSUS M/s J.S.Jandu & Brothers and others. .. Respondents * * * CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.M.S.BEDI 1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. Whether to be referred to the Reporter? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? * * * PRESENT Mr.Manuj Nagrath, Advocate, for the appellant. M.M.S. BEDI, J. (ORAL) CM No.11960-C of 2010 There is delay of 29 days in filing the appeal. For the reasons mentioned in the application, delay in filing of the appeal is condoned. Misc. application stands allowed. CM No.11961-C of 2010 For the reasons mentioned in the application, delay . . . 1 RSA No.4026 of 2010 (O&M) of 25 days in re-filing of the appeal is condoned. Misc. application stands allowed. RSA No.4026 of 2010 The plaintiff-appellant had filed a suit for permanent injunction to restrain the defendants-respondents from running any type of machinery or generator set inside or outside his property which is adjacent to the house of the plaintiff-appellant on the ground that the said action of the defendant causes an actionable nuisance. A relief of mandatory injunction directing the defendants-respondents to stop the running of a particular kind of machinery and generator set was raised. The Courts below have partly decreed the suit of the plaintiff-appellant and granted permanent injunction restraining the defendants from running the machinery and generator set during the night hours from 10:00 PM to 6:00 AM. The plaintiff is not satisfied with the decree passed in his favour. The plaintiff seeks the relief of injunction prohibiting the defendant from running machinery and generator set as EX.P8, a report submitted by PW.2, Charanjit Singh Assistant Scientific Officer, that the degree of noise pollution is beyond the permissible limits, has been given against the defendants-respondents. I have considered the contention of the learned counsel for the plaintiff-appellant and I am of the opinion that the Courts below taking into consideration the extent of nuisance caused on account of running of the machinery and generator set by the . . . 2 RSA No.4026 of 2010 (O&M) defendants-respondents and simultaneously taking into consideration the discomfort which is being caused to the plaintiff has partly decreed the suit of the plaintiff-appellant. So far as the right of the defendants-respondents to carry on his business and live comfortably is concerned, he has also got a constitutional right for the same. The Courts below seem to have struck a balance between the rights of the defendant-respondent and the discomfort being suffered by the plaintiff-appellant. No substantial question of law is involved. Besides this, it will remain debatable whether the suit filed by the plaintiff- appellant on the ground of nuisance solely on behalf of a resident of the locality under Section 91 of the Code of Civil Procedure, is maintainable. Dismissed. (M.M.S.BEDI) JUDGE April 27, 2011. rka . . . 3