The appellant is entitled to perpetual injunction against the respondent.
It was admitted by the respondent that the machines caused air and numberse pollution.
The appellant being an advocate also runs his chambers from his residence and, therefore, the severe vibration and air pollution also started adversely affecting his professional activities.
The vibrations caused by the machines cracked the wall of the appellant and the pollution emitted was detrimentally affecting the health of the appellant and his family members.
The running of his business is detrimental to the health of the appellant and his family.
On the other hand, suit filed by the respodnent was dismissed vide decree of the same date.
26/2004.
206 and 207 of 2012 observing that The house of the respondent is adjacent to appellants house and there was a wall of 4 breadth between the two houses.
The running of said business came under the ambit of private nuisance and that such activities should number be carried out in residential areas as it is detrimental to physical and mental health of people at large.
which were operated on electricity from his residential accommodation.
Because of a vibrations caused by the said machines the wall on the appellants side cracked at many places.
The chronology of the events is as under Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by ASHWANI KUMAR Date 2018.06.28 144255 IST Reason The respondent started running the business of Flour Mill, Oil Mill and Expeller, Ice Factory etc.
After the trial, the suit of the appellant was decreed and the Trial Court passed a decree of permanent injunction dated 03.12.2012 prohibiting the respondent from operating the said machines and from spreading air and numberse pollution.
622 of 2013 and 623 of 2013 whereby the High Court has allowed these appeals of the respondent and set aside the judgment and decree that was passed by the Trial Court in favour of the appellant and also upheld by the First Appellate Court.
The SHO directed the respondent to stop the nuisance and pollution but the respondent did number companyply with the said direction.
The defence of volunti number fit injuria does number sustain as when the appellant started living in this house in 1990 the respondent was operating the machines on electricity and it was in 2003 that the respondent started operating the machines on diesel which caused vibrations and pollution.
The respondent being aggrieved by the judgments and decree passed by the Civil Judge Junior Division Sakri, Allahabad filed Civil Appeal No.
622/2013 and 623/2013 before the Allahabad High Court.
The Administrative Officer, after enquiry, submitted his report on 02.12.2003.
Upon the report filed by the Administrative Officer, the Sub Divisional Magistrate directed the Station House Officer to investigate the matter.
Due to the aforesaid harassment and nuisance the appellant made a companyplaint to the Sub Divisional Magistrate, who directed the Administrative Officer to file his report on the companyplaint of the appellant.
The respondent has a business of Flour Mill, Oil Mill and expeller, Ice factory etc.
According to the appellant, from the year 2003 the respondent started operating the above said flour mill with machines, on diesel engine, which started causing severe vibrations and air pollution.
206/2012 and 207/2012 before the Additional District Judge, Court No.2, Allahabad.
Thereafter the appellant also filed Original Suit No.
In 2003 the respondent started using expeller machine etc.
At that stage, the respondent filed Original Suit No.
Being aggrieved by the judgment and decree in Civil Appeal No.
which was operated on diesel which produced a lot of vibrations and air and numberse pollution.
The suit was filed in the year 2004 and was, thus, well within time.
206/2012 and 207/2012 passed by the Additional District Judge, Allahabad, the respondent filed Second Appeals Nos.
and he uses the said machines on diesel.
The Additional District Judge, Allahabad passed a companymon companyfirmatory judgment and decreed dated 25.02.2013 in Civil Appeal Nos.
2518/2003 against the appellant wherein the respondent prayed for perpetual injunction against the appellant from interfering in the running of the business of the respondent.
The respondent started his business in 1990 but at that time his machines were operated on electricity.
The appellant, who is an advocate, is the owner and resident of the adjoining house, which has a companymon wall with the house of the respondent.
26/2004 against the respondent wherein the appellant prayed for perpetual injunction against the running of the business of the respondent which was causing nuisance and pollution.
The High Court has been pleased to allow both the Second Appeals and set aside judgments and decree dated 03.10.2012 passed by the Civil Judge Junior Division , Sakri, Allahabad and 25.02.2013 passed by the Additional District Judge, Court No.
This explanation has number been found to be companyvincing by the High Court.
The oral evidences of the witnesses made it clear that the machines used by the respondent caused vibrations and emitted air and numberse pollution.
K.SIKRI, J. Leave granted.
By means of these appeals the appellant challenged the judgment and order dated 29.05.2013 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in Second Appeal Nos.
