432 PA 1m 1 Reqular Second ApPeal Noe 4168 of 2008 lOSMI0 IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB S HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision2 April 1 2011 1 iar Second Appeal Noa 4168 of 2008 lOSMI m r Raj Singh and others Appellants 0 C3 VERSUS C45 Murari Lal and others Respondents I Z m CORAM HONBLE MRUSTICE MOHINDER PAL C I 1 Whether Reportersof Local papers may be allowed to see the judgment2 2 To be referred to the Reporters or not7 Z 3 Whether the judgmentshould be reported in the Digest7 oo Presentl MrHari Pal Verma Advocate 17 for the appelIants Z Mr Sudanshu Makkar Advocate Qm for the respondents MOHINDER PAL J Plaintiffrespondents hereinafter referred to as the respondents filed the insta nt suit against the defendants appellants hereinafter referred to as the the appellants for mandatoryinjunction restra ining the appelIants from ca using nuisance to the respondents by running saw machine near Rawat Seema 2012.11.23 11: 29 True Scanned Copy Of The Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 16:01 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 433 Reqular Second Appeal Noa 4168 of 2008 lOaMl the residential house of the respondents The trial Court vide judgmentand decree dated 1552004 dismissed the suit filed by the respondents However on appeal by the respondents the judgmentand decree passed by the trial Court were set aside by the Iower appellateCourt and suit of the respondents was 1 decreed thereby restrainingthe appellants from operating the 0 machine in the residential area vide judgment and decree saw 0 C0 dated 692008 The appellants are now Ill second appeal I C5 the judgmentand decree passed by the Iower I appellateCourt Z After hearing the Iearned counselfor the parties and perusi ng the im pugned judgment passed by the Iower a ppellate C Court I do not find any ground which may warrant interference I therein It could not be pointed out by the Iearned counsel for Z the appellants that such findings recorded by the Iower appellate C Court are based on misreadingof evidence orthat material 7 evidence has not been taken into consideration W hen the Z respondents were awayfrom their residential house for about two months the appellants illegallyinstalled three electric motors of heavy weight for ru n n ing a saw machine in the residential area adjacent to the house of the respondents The running of savv machi ne ca used a great nuisance tothe respondentsand otherinhabitants of the Iocality Besides environment of the Ioca1ity had been polluted by sou nd a nd dust etc ema nati ng from the running of saw machine by the appellants When the did not pay any heed to the request of the respondents Rawat Seema 2012.11.23 11: 29 True Scanned Copy Of The Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 16:01 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 434 1a m3 Reqular Second Appeal N 4168 of 2008 tO8Mle not to operate the saw machine in the residential area the respondentsper force filed the instant suit for permanent injunctionagainst the appellants The appellants in the written statement to the suit did not deny the fact of operating the saw machine in the residential area but pleaded that the 1 operationof saw machine did not cause any nuisance to the inhabitants of the area 0 0 Exhibit P 1 on record is the order dated I 122002 passedby the Sub Divisiona 1 Magistrate Jhajjar I whereinit has been mentioned that the Sub Divisional Magistrate Z after visitingthe spot had found that the appellantswere runningsaw Aara machine without taking any priorpermission C from the competent authority and that runningof saw machine I in the area was adverselyaffectingthe health of the inhabitants at Z Iarge Photographshave also been producedon record by the m which are Mark A to Mark A glance at these photographs reveals that the saw machine has been 7 Z installed in the residential area where the people are residing with their fam ilies In the presence of this documentary evidence the statements of plaintiff Murari Lal PW 11 Rajesh PW6 plaintiffSohna Devi PW7J and plaintiffRishi Pal PW8 Wherein they deposed that the appellants had installed saw machine in the residential area adjacentto their houses thereby causing a great dea I of n u isance gain significa nce It has a Iso come in evidence that a PrimarySchooI is situated across the thoroughfarenear the saw machine Clause of the Noise Rawat Seema 2012.11.23 11: 29 True Scanned Copy Of The Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 16:01 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 435 1 4 Reqular Second Appeal Noe 4168 of 2008 108M1 Pollution Regulationand Contro Rules 2000 provides that an area comprising not Iess than 100 meters a rou nd hospitaIs educational institutions and Courts may be declared as silence arealzoneforthe purpose of these Rules Needless to say noise arlslng from sawing cutting and hammeringof wood would certainlybe a noise which would be offensive and also unwholesome to a normal man Iivingnearby The trial Court was 0 0 thus not j ustified in ignoring the abovementioned evidence I and dismissingthe suit filed by the respondents The Iower t5 appellateCourt under the circumstances rightly set aslde the judgmentand decree passedby the trial Court and decreed the Z e2 suit of the respondentsas men0oned above Ct For the aforesaid reasons I do not find any patent I illegalityor irregu Iarity in the findings recorded by the Iower C3 Z appellateCourt which may give rise to any substanUalquesOon of QO Iaw in the present appeal Resultantly this appeal IS hereby dismissed being without any merit W2 Z 01 2 a C PALI April l Il 2011 JUDGE 1 ak Co 7 0 vl Il rD4 Rawat Seema 2012.11.23 11: 29 True Scanned Copy Of The Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 16:01 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document