1980 PLP 1040 (CLC)

2. The house of the plaintiff-appellant 49/14, is opposite to that of defendant-respondent bearing No. 3/9-A, in Firdous Colony, Karachi. There is a 10 feet lane in between the two houses. Both houses open on 40 wide road on their respective sides.

3. Plaintiff prayed for temporary injunction to restrain the defendant from operating rubber and plastic moulding machines and doing other work of grills, iron-gates, shutters by welding machine which cause lot of noise which affect the comfort of the plaintiff and inmates of his house.

4. Houses of parties were inspected by the trial Judge on 28th May, 1973 and he observed :- I inspected the house No. 3/-9/A, Firdous Colony where the factory is being run. In the said house there were two electric machines which were for the rubber and plastic moulding purposes. Both the machines were operated under my directions. One of the machines did not cause any noise while the other machine caused some noise which was not so loud. In the courtyard where the machines were being operated, vibrations and shaking in the floor and walls of the House No. 3/9/A were felt. ' There were no machines for preparing the iron gates grills, and shutters using the welding plant. There were only two electric machines one for moulding the rubber and plastic and the other for thread which was not causing any noise . The noise of the machine was not so loud as to shake the building or cause vibrations in the house of the plaintiff by the operation of machines also found that when windows are closed even the slightest noise was not heard ...... ....There were also other factories, motor garrages, Lathe machine, workshops, Biscuit factory and many other trades in front lane of the plaintiff and also at a little distance. Motor garrage and Lathe machines were. about 100/150 feet away from the house of the plaintiff." The Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Nazimabad, Karachi. who too had visited the houses of parties in connection with a case of nuisance under section 133, Cr. P. C. made the following comments in his order sheet dated 3rd January, 1978 :-- " I have inspected the places myself. The area where the factory is situated is more or less a semi commercial area and almost in every house such factories are running think that there is no general nuisance to the people of the locality. Moreover, the machine does not sound much. It is brought to my knowledge that the machine works from morning till the sunset and not afterwards."

5. These aforesaid observations show that noise of the two machines' is not so loud as to cause discomfort to the plaintiff and inmates of the house. It is also not correct that when machines start working, they cause vibration in the house of plaintiff. There is no truth in the fact that grills, iron gates and shutters were being made with welding plant.. There is, therefore, no prima facie case made out in favour of the plaintiff, to grant him injunction prayed for. The Additional District Judge has not erroneously exercised the jurisdiction vested in him. There is no obvious reason to interfere with the discretion exercised by the Additional' District Judge.

6. Appeal is, therefore, dismissed with costs. S. Q. Appeal dismissed.