K KARUNANIDHI Vs. R RENGANATHAN CHETTIAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE defendants are the petitioners in the above civil revision petition. O. S. No. 76 of 1971 was filed on the file of the Court of the Subordinate Judge, nagapattinam, by the respondent-plaintiff for granting decree for permanent injunction restraining the petitioners herein and their men and servants from installing and running a new mill in his adjacent western house in T. S. No. 878/1 in the north as indicated in the plaint plan and further carrying on their proposed mill business in the suit place alleging that if the said mill is run apart from nuisance to the respondent herein, it will affect the walls belonging to the respondent. In that suit the respondent herein filed I. A. No. 454 of 1971 for a temporary injunction restraining the petitioners herein and their men and servants from installing and running a new mill with machinery in the suit site as indicated in the plaint plan pending disposal of the suit inter alia alleging that if the powerful motor is run by the petitioners herein, it will not only cause considerable material disturbance and irreparable injury to the living portion of the respondent herein, but also to the walls of his building, that the installation of the machinery is at a distance of two feet from the walls of the premises of the respondent and the vibrations caused to the wall will certainly cause material injury to the wall and bring about cracks thereof, and ultimate collapse, that no compensation of money is possible for the nuisance that will be caused by the petitioners and that the petitioners are likely to cause material and irreparable injury both to the respondent's health and comfort. The respondent has further alleged in the petition that since the petitioners are hastening to start the mill in the proposed place, it is necessary that ad interim injunction is granted in favor of the respondent.

(2.) THE petition in their counter statement have alleged that they are going to install a motor of 7. 5 HP to run a mill (pulses breaking) in a shed erected adjoining the northern end of the respondent's house, that the respondent will not be in any way put to difficulty inasmuch as at a distance of about 25 ft. and 30 ft. from the residential portion of the respondent, there are two mills run with motors of 40 and 25 HP, that the whole area is not wholly a residential one, that the area is in a busy business centre wherein all kinds of mills are run, that all preventive measures against vibrations have been adopted by the petitioners herein and that it will not actually cause injury to the premises of the respondent herein. The petitioners have also alleged in their counter statement that there will be no material discomfort to the respondent and in any case it will not be a nuisance such as would entitle the respondent to an injunction for carrying on his business. It is admitted by the petitioners herein that the motor is fixed up at a distance of four feet from the wall of the premises of the respondent. In the reply affidavit the petitioners have alleged that they have actually started the mill and worked on 612-1971 and has consumed certain electricity. But they have stopped running of the mill on the very same day as soon as they received the telegram stating that temporary injunction had been granted in favor of the respondent herein prohibiting the petitioners from running the mill, by the Sub-Court Nagapattinam.

(3.) THE Sub-Court Nagapattinam, after going through the prima facie case of the respective parties held that the evidence and the decisions can be discussed in detail at the final stage, that the object of the respondent will be nullified, if the mill is allowed to run and that the inconvenience that will be caused to the respondent will be greater than to the petitioners herein if the mill is allowed to be run and granted temporary injunction as prayed for. The Sub-Court also found that the petitioners had started the mill on 6-12-1971 and stopped it immediately on the same day in view of the injunction granted by that Court and as such there is no question of any irreparable injury or loss that will be caused to the petitioners if the injunction is granted.