Punjab-Haryana High Court
Vinod @ Pappu vs Charat Singh And Anr on 14 October, 2014
Equivalent citations: AIR 2015 (NOC) 148 (P. & H.)
Author: Surinder Gupta
Bench: Surinder Gupta
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
RSA NO.1030 OF 2011 (O&M)
DATE OF DECISION : 14th OCTOBER, 2014
Vinod @ Pappu
.... Appellant
Versus
Charat Singh & another
.... Respondents
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURINDER GUPTA
****
Present : Mr. R. N. Lohan, Advocate for the appellant.
Mr. Amit Kumar Jain, Advocate for the respondents.
****
SURINDER GUPTA, J. (ORAL)
Respondents Charat Singh and Ashok Kumar filed a suit for mandatory injunction seeking directions as follows:
'To remove and demolish the High Horse Power 2 electric Motors along with Electric Heavy Hammer from the house of defendant, installed adjoining the compound wall of the shop and residential house of the plaintiff No.1, which is shown in site plan in Red colour Marked as ABCD and further ordering the defendant the above said electric Hammer be not installed in any place in his house within premises of his house Marked as EFGH because the house of the plaintiff No.2 has a compound wall with the house of defendant and the above said electric Hammer Machine is creating heavy vibration and ear bursting sound. The location of the electric machine is as under:-RSA NO.1030 OF 2011 (O&M) -2-
East :- House of plaintiff No.2.
West :- Compound wall of plaintiff No.1.
North :- Other plots.
South :- Hansi Road and doors of plaintiff Nos.1,
2 and defendant.
And further prayer for permanent injunction restraining the defendant from running and working the heavy electric Hammer Machine which is creating a huge sound and Vibration and causing adverse effect to the health of the plaintiffs, family members as well as causing vibration to the compound wall of plaintiff No.1 and can cause a great danger to the wall and residential house of the plaintiff no.1, by any process or way now or in future in any manner whatsoever.' The contention of respondents in the plaint was that the locality, where the premises are situated, is not for commercial purpose and industrial activities. The appellant installed electric hammer machine about a month ago without permission from the authorities. The electric hammer cause vibration and heavy sound shaking the wall of the house and the sound created by that machine is not tolerable for the human being and animals. This has caused great trouble to the respondents, other inhabitants of the locality and in neighbourhood and the study of the students.
A week before the filing of the suit, the appellant installed another electric motor with the said hammer machine, thereby increasing RSA NO.1030 OF 2011 (O&M) -3- the vibration in the wall and sound from the electric machine. The matter was also reported to the police but to no avail.
The appellant admitted the installation of the electric hammer machine but refuted the plea of respondents that it was installed a month before filing of the suit, alleging that the same was installed in the year 2005 after taking loan from State Bank of India. It was denied that the electric hammer machine cause dangerous vibration and heavy sound thereby causing nuisance to the plaintiffs, other inhabitants of locality and the students.
The pleadings of parties led to the framing of following issues by the lower Court:
'1. Whether the defendant has installed electric heavy hammer machine adjoining the residential house of plaintiff no.1 shown by letters ABCD in red colour in the site plan which has caused vibration, nuisance resulting into rifts and shakings in the walls of the house of the plaintiffs and neighbourers of the locality, if so to what effect? OPP
2. If issue no.1 is proved in affirmative, whether the plaintiffs are entitled for a decree of mandatory as well as permanent injunction on the grounds mentioned in the plaint? OPP
3. Whether the civil Court has got no jurisdiction to try and decide the present suit ? OPD RSA NO.1030 OF 2011 (O&M) -4-
4. Whether the suit is not maintainable in the present form ? OPD
5. Whether the suit is false and frivolous and liable to be dismissed with special costs ? OPD
6. Whether the plaintiffs have no cause of action and locus standi to file the present suit ? OPD
7. Relief.' In support of their case respondents Charat Singh appeared as PW-1 and Ashok Kumar as PW-2. They examined Om Parkash a resident of adjoining premises where the electric hammer had been installed by the appellant.
The appellant on the other hand examined Rambir as DW-1, Ruldu as DW-2, Roshan as DW-3, while the appellant himself appeared as DW-4. The Court of Additional Civil Judge after perusal of evidence arrived at the conclusion as follows :
'In view of the above discussion and after careful perusal of the case file, this Court is of the considered view that the plaintiffs have been successful in proving their case that the action of the defendant in installation of the electric hammer machine as well as electric motors for welding set etc. is causing great disturbance to them. Even the defendant when appeared into witness has admitted the fact that a compromise between the parties was arrived in the Police Station and as per the compromise he was required to shift the electric hammer etc. in his other RSA NO.1030 OF 2011 (O&M) -5- plot but now he has explained that he could not shift the same due to the fact that neighbourers of the plot objected his installation of the electric hammer machine as well as electric motor. Meaning thereby, it is proved that the electric hammer and electric motor are causing nuisance to the plaintiffs. The defendant cannot take advantage of the fact that he is running the factory in his own premises and right to livelihood is his fundamental right because such a right is permitted only up to the extent it does not violate rights of others and cannot be availed of by any citizen at the costs of others. Here this Court derives support from Atma Singh vs. Hari Singh and another 1983 CLJ (Civil and Criminal) Page 230, wherein, the Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court has upheld the principle that no one should be allowed to use his own property in such a manner that it creates nuisance.' The suit of the plaintiffs-respondents was decreed and the appellant was directed to remove and demolish the electric heavy hammer from his house. He was also restrained from using any electric hammer machine in the disputed premises.
The appeal filed against the judgment of the lower Court met with no success and was dismissed by the Additional District Judge, Jind vide judgment dated 19.01.2011. This regular second appeal has been filed by the defendant-appellant, seeking the relief of setting aside the RSA NO.1030 OF 2011 (O&M) -6- judgment of both the Courts below and dismissing the suit of the plaintiffs-respondents.
Counsel for the parties have been heard and file perused. Learned counsel for the appellant has argued that the premises of the appellant is situated on Hansi Road and it is not an area exclusively marked for residential purposes. The appellant is at liberty to carry on his business and for that purpose installed the machinery there. The plaintiffs had no locus standi to restrain him from carrying out his business. This fact is not disputed that on this road there are several shops and other commercial establishments.
The learned counsel for the respondents has argued that the challenge is not to the commercial activity being carried by the appellant. The question is whether his activities are causing nuisance to the residents of that area. The site plan Ex.P-2 shows that the area on Hansi Road is residential locality, having the houses of various persons, including the house of the appellant where he has installed the electric hammer and the same is causing lot of noise and vibrations, which affect the peace and tranquility in that area and cause nuisance to the human beings and also to the animals. A person is not supposed to carry heavy industrial activity in residential area or even in commercial locality, which cause nuisance to the residents of that area.
The dispute between the parties was earlier taken to the police where a compromise Ex.P-1 took place. Vide this compromise the appellant agreed to remove the electric hammer from his house. The contention of the appellant is that he has a workshop at a distance of 5-7 killas from the disputed property and as per the compromise Ex.P-1 he RSA NO.1030 OF 2011 (O&M) -7- tried to install the electric hammer in the workshop but the neighbours there raised dispute and he had to ultimately sell that property. The appellant has admitted that the house of respondents are on Western side of his house and ahead of that house is a school. He has further admitted that the plaintiffs-respondents are prior resident of that area. His witness Rambir has admitted that the appellant had installed an electric hammer, grinding machine, welding machine, three electric motors etc. in his house. There is a hearth run on coal, which omits a lot of smoke.
The sum and substances of the statement of the defendant and his witnesses is that the heavy machinery, which include electric hammer, had been installed by the appellant in his residential house, which is surrounded by other houses and a school. It is admitted that no permission form the municipality for installation of such machinery, has been taken. It is also admitted that the appellant agreed for the removal of this machinery. Extent of nuisance, being caused due to the running of this machinery, can be well understood from the fact that the neighbours in the adjoining property, where the machinery was intended to be installed, blocked its installation.
Everybody is free to carry on his business, vocation, commercial activity to earn his livelihood but he can not be allowed to create nuisance to the neighbors and obstruct their peaceful living. It is not disputed that the running of electric motors and electric hammers creates a lot of vibration and sound which are source of nuisance in the locality and both the Courts below have committed no error of law and fact while reaching the conclusion that the appellant cannot be allowed to perpetrate and continue the nuisance being created by him. The mere fact RSA NO.1030 OF 2011 (O&M) -8- that the locality where this premises is situated is not a residential locality, is immaterial. Even in a commercial locality, having shops or offices, such implements which create lot of nuisance and noise, cannot be allowed to be installed.
As a sequel of my above observations, no substantial question of law requiring determination, arises in this appeal and the same is dismissed.
14th October, 2014 (SURINDER GUPTA)
'raj' JUDGE
RAJ KUMAR
2014.10.30 15:55
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
Chandigarh