G.M.LODHA, J. - (1.)PALI cannot be compared with Paris and Jodhpur with Geneva or Zunic of Switzerland for the concept of cleanliness, sanitation and the consequential negation of it, leading to 'actionable nuisance' is the lively interesting debate, turned into legal arguments in this appeal.
(2.)AND now the traditional facts. The appeal is directed against the judgment of the learned Single Judge of this Court by which the suit of the plaintiff based on 'nuisance' was dismissed and the appeal of the defendant was accepted.
The dispute relates to the construction of the shop over the stair case by the defendant, who happens to be the neighbour of the plaintiff appellant. The plaintiff's case is that he has got a shop in the same market and the construction by the defendant has caused discomfort amounting to nuisance to the plaintiff because by the impugned construction an obstruction has been created to the flow of the foul smell which was otherwise passing over the Chabutra of the defendant According to the plaintiff, the lane adjoining to is used for urination by people and where some times human excreta is also passed and cattle also spoil the area, resulting in bad smell and foul winds

(3.)EARLIER it used to pass over the Chabutra of the defendant and now by this construction this foul smell has been diverted towards the plaintiff's shop. In substance, the case of the plaintiff was of 'actionable nuisance' against the defendant by diversion of the foul and bad smell towards the plaintiff's shop, on account of the construction.