Case Note & Summary
The appeal arose from a suit filed by the original plaintiffs (respondents 3 to 10) who were residents of a slum near V.P. Stadium, Worli, Mumbai. They claimed that the appellant (original defendant no. 3) had started a flour mill in his premises within the slum, which caused nuisance to them. The plaintiffs alleged that the flour mill was constructed on a drainage pipe line and that its operation created noise, dust, and other disturbances. They sought an injunction to stop the activity and a declaration that the permission granted by the municipal authorities was illegal. The trial court, by judgment and order dated December 13, 2004, allowed Notice of Motion No. 3838 of 2004 and directed the appellant to stop running the flour mill in the suit structure until the disposal of the suit. The appellant challenged this order in the present appeal. The High Court, after hearing the parties, held that the trial court had exercised its discretion judiciously and that there was no perversity or error in the impugned order. The court noted that the plaintiffs had made out a prima facie case of nuisance and that the balance of convenience was in their favor. The appeal was dismissed, and the interim injunction was upheld.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Interim Injunction - Nuisance - Prima Facie Case - The trial court granted an interim injunction restraining the appellant from running a flour mill in a slum area, holding that the plaintiffs made out a prima facie case of nuisance and that the balance of convenience was in their favor. The High Court upheld the order, finding no perversity or error in the trial court's exercise of discretion. (Paras 1-3)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the trial court was justified in granting an interim injunction restraining the appellant from running a flour mill in a slum area on the ground of nuisance.
Final Decision
The appeal is dismissed. The impugned order dated December 13, 2004 passed by the trial court is upheld.
Law Points
- Nuisance
- Injunction
- Interim Relief
- Balance of Convenience
- Prima Facie Case
Case Details
2005 LawText (BOM) (04) 21
Mr. P.P. Surve for the Appellant; Mr. N.V. Walavalkar with Ms. Geeta Joglekar for Respondent No.1; Ms. Soumya Srikrishna i/b/ Crawford Bailey for Respondent No.2; Mr. Rajiv Chavan r/w. M/s. Lucy Massey i/b. Lucy Messay for Respondent Nos. 3 to 10
Nurjan Mohd. Aslam Chaudhari
Brihanmumbai Mahanagar Palika and others
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Civil appeal against an interim injunction order restraining the appellant from running a flour mill.
Remedy Sought
The appellant sought to set aside the trial court's order directing him to stop running the flour mill.
Filing Reason
The appellant was aggrieved by the trial court's order granting an interim injunction against him.
Previous Decisions
The trial court allowed Notice of Motion No. 3838 of 2004 and directed the appellant to stop running the flour mill till disposal of the suit.
Issues
Whether the trial court was justified in granting an interim injunction restraining the appellant from running a flour mill in a slum area on the ground of nuisance.
Submissions/Arguments
The appellant argued that the trial court's order was erroneous and that no prima facie case of nuisance was made out.
The respondents supported the trial court's order, submitting that the flour mill caused nuisance and that the balance of convenience was in their favor.
Ratio Decidendi
The trial court's exercise of discretion in granting an interim injunction based on prima facie case of nuisance and balance of convenience was not perverse or erroneous, and therefore the appellate court should not interfere.
Judgment Excerpts
The Appeal is preferred by the Original Defendant No.3 taking exception to the Judgment and Order dated December 13, 2004 passed by the learned trial Judge.
By the impugned Judgment and Order the learned trial Judge has allowed the Notice of Motion No.3838 of 2004 taken out by the Original Plaintiffs and has directed the Appellant (Defendant No.3) to stop running the flour mill in the suit structure till the disposal of the suit.
Procedural History
The original plaintiffs filed a suit seeking injunction and declaration against the appellant and others. The trial court allowed Notice of Motion No. 3838 of 2004 and granted interim injunction. The appellant appealed against that order.
