BEFORE

THE HON’BLE CIVIL COURT OF MOHALI

through its prop

IN THE MATTER OF

Dr. Kim , resident of - Nayagaon , Punjab PETITIONER

VERSUS
Mithai-hi-Mithai, Through its Proprietor , Mr. Kumar RESPOND-
ENT

BEFORE SUBMISSION TO

THE HONOURABLE CIVIL JUDGE ,

HONOURABLE DISTRICT COURT OF MOHALI, PUNJAB.

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT

 TABLE OF CONTENTS

S. NO. PARTICULARS PAGE

NO.

1. LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS 3

2. INDEX OF AUTHORITIES 4

3. STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION 6

4. STATEMENT OF FACTS 7

5. ISSUES RAISED 8

6. SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS 9

7. ARGUMENTS ADVANCED 10-19

ISSUE I : 10
THAT NOISE FROM THE MACHINES WOULD AMOUNT TO
THE TORT OF PRIVATE NUISANCE OR NOT ?

ISSUE II: 14

THAT WHETHER THE SUIT FOR INJUNCTION IS

MAINTAINABLE IN THE HON’BLE COURT ?

2 | Page
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT
 8. PRAYER 20

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

S.NO ABBREVIATIONS FULL FORM

1. ¶ Paragraph

2. § Section

3. & And

4. AIR All India Reporter

5. Art. Article

6. Anr. Another

7 HC High Court

8. Hon’ble Honourable

9. NGO Non-Governmental Organization

10. Ors. Others

11. SC Supreme Court

12. SCR Supreme Court Reporter

13. U.O.I Union Of India

3 | Page
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT
14. v. Versus

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

1. Dhanna Lal v. Chittar Singh AIR1959

2. Bhanwarlal v. Dhanraj RH/0059/1973
3. George Philip v. Subbammal SC/0017/1956 : 1957CriLJ404
4. Ramalal v. Calcutta Corporation AIR1966
5. Radhey Shiam vs. Gur Prasad Serma and Anr. 1978
7. Kshitish Chandra Bose vs. Commissioner of Ranchi SC/0364/1981

8. Behari Lal vs. J. Maclean and Ors. UP/0570/1924

9. Abdul Jabar Butt vs. State of Jammu and Kashmir 0017/1956

10. Rampalat Shaw vs. Corporation of Calcutta WB/0034/1966

LITERATURE REFERRED:

➢ COMMENTARIES ON TORT OF NUISANCE:

1. Underbill's Law of Torts (2nd Indian Edition, 1924)

2. Anand & Sastri's Law of Torts, 4th Edition, 1980

➢ COMMENTARIES ON CONSTITUTIONAL LAW:

4 | Page
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT
1. M.P. JAIN, INDIAN CONSTITUTIONAL LAW (6th ed. Lexis Nexis Butterworths
Wadhwa, Nagpur 2010).
2. DR. SUBHASH C. KASHYAP, 2 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW OF INDIA (Universal
Law Publishing Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi 2008).

STATUTES REFERRED:
1. THE SPECIFIC RELIEF ACT, 1963.
2. THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, 1949
3. THE NOISE POLLUTION (REGULATION AND CONTROL) RULES, 2000.

DICTIONARIES REFERRED:
1. OXFORD ENGLISH DICTIONARY (2nd ed. 2009).
2. P. RAMAPHARYAN, LAW LEXCION, (4th ed. 2017)

LEGAL DATABASES:
1. MANUPATRA.
2. SCC ONLINE.
3. LAWFINDER.

WEBSITES REFERRED:
1. http://www.manupatra.com
2. http://www.judis.nic.in
3. http://www.scconline.com
4. http://www.jstor.com

OTHER SOURCES
1. Wharton’s Law Lexicon, 15th Edn. 2009
2. Encyclopaedia Britannica Online, “Private Nuisance"

5 | Page
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT
 STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

The petitioner had approached the Hon’ble CIVIL COURT, SAS NAGAR (Mohali)
, under SECTION 381 of the SPECIFIC RELIEF ACT 1963 and the respondent
humbly submits to the jurisdiction.

38. Perpetual injunction when granted.—

(1) Subject to the other provisions contained in or referred to by this Chapter, a perpetual in-
junction may be granted to the plaintiff to prevent the breach of an obligation existing in his
favour, whether expressly or by implication.
(2) When any such obligation arises from contract, the court shall be guided by the rules and
provisions contained in Chapter II.
(3) When the defendant invades or threatens to invade the plaintiff’s right to, or enjoyment of,
property, the court may grant a perpetual injunction in the following cases, namely:—
(a) where the defendant is trustee of the property for the plaintiff;
(b) where there exists no standard for ascertaining the actual damage caused, or likely to be
caused, by the invasion;
(c) where the invasion is such that compensation in money would not afford adequate relief;
(d) where the injunction is necessary to prevent a multiplicity of judicial proceedings.

6 | Page
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT
 STATEMENT OF FACTS

 Mithai - hi -Mithai is a famous sweet shop in the main area of Nayagaon

(adjoining Chandigarh) since last 20-25 years.

 The said sweet shop is owned by Mr. Kumar, who is politically well con-
nected and who also has 3 more retail counters in Chandigarh.

 The shop has an attached manufacturing unit , which employees about 50-
55 workers.

 Dr. Kim ,a medical practitioner moved just next door to his sweet shop in
Nayagaon. He purchased a 15 marlas house property & constructed a shed
for the purpose of private practice.

 The said shed of Dr. Kim was built on the boundary.

 Due to the closeness of the manufacturing unit of Mr. Kumar’s shop , loud
noises from the machines and pestles could be clearly heard. Thus disrupt-
ing Dr. Kim’s use of and enjoyment of his land.

 Dr.Kim talked to Mr.Kumar to shift his manufacturing unit, but on vain.

He also complained many times to the authority , but no serious action was
taken due to the political connections of Mr.Kumar.

7 | Page
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT
  Now a suit for Injunction has been filed by Dr.Kim before the Hon’ble
Civil Court , Mohali with respect to the nuisance caused by loud noise from
the adjoining manufacturing unit..

ISSUES RAISED

ISSUE 1
THAT NOISE FROM THE MACHINES WOULD AMOUNT TO THE TORT OF
PRIVATE NUISANCE OR NOT ?
….…….…….……….………………………….

ISSUE 2
THAT WHETHER THE SUIT FOR INJUNCTION IS MAINTAINABLE IN THE
HON’BLE COURT ?
………………………………….…….……….…

8 | Page
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT
 SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

1. THAT NOISE FROM THE MACHINES WOULD AMOUNT TO THE TORT OF

PRIVATE NUISANCE OR NOT ?

 It is humbly submitted before this Hon’ble court that there being no exact definition of
private nuisance , whether an act amounts to nuisance or not , shall be determined in light
of the extent of damage or discomfort implied from the circumstances and facts of each
case. In order for an act to become a nuisance , the damage or discomfort caused must be
substantial and beyond its ordinary course of occurrence.

 Thus its humbly submitted in the light of these judgments and arguments that there must
always be some noise which is the price we have to pay for progress. It will accordingly be
impossible to eliminate all noise and smell in a welfare state and absolute and undisturbed
peace may well be the peace of the grave yard. Thus the said noise from the manufacturing
unit of the respondent is not a private nuisance.

2. THAT WHETHER THE SUIT FOR INJUNCTION IS MAINTAINABLE IN THE

HON’BLE COURT ?

• It is most humbly submitted before this honourable court that following are Essentials for
granting injunctions
1. Irreparable & substantial damage
2. No other legal remedy is available

• In the present case neither the damage is irreparable nor the plaintiff lacks the availability
of alternative legal remedies. The said suit is also violative of Art.19 (1) (g) of The Consti-
tution Of India .

9 | Page
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT
• Thus in light of the judgements , the suit fails the test of its maintainability in the hon’ble
Court.

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

MOST RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH:

➢ THAT NOISE FROM THE MACHINES WOULD AMOUNT TO THE TORT

OF PRIVATE NUISANCE OR NOT ?

1. It is humbly submitted before this Hon’ble court that the noise from the said manufacturing
unit of the respondent doesn’t amount to Private Nuisance u/The Law Of Torts as there is
no well settled principle to determine whether a said act falls under the tort of private nui-
sance or not. Thus it has to be derived at by understanding the circumstances/facts of each
case.

2. “If a man lives in a town; it is necessary that he should subject himself to the consequences
of those operations of trade which may be carried on in the immediate locality which are
actually necessary for trade and commerce”.

The plaintiff lives in the main area of Nayagaon , which is a mixed colony comprising of
shops , residential plots and some manufacturing units. The respondent’s shops and manu-
facturing unit is located in the same establishment. The manufacturing unit has been work-
ing from 8a.m to 8p.m (which is not beyond the ordinary course of action), for the past 20-
25 years.

In Roshan Lal and Anr. V Banwari Lal and Anr.2 , it was held that running of manu-
facturing unit in a floor mill in a mixed colony of residents and other commercial shops
,from 8a.m to 8p.m was not any extra ordinary act and neither was the discomfort such
caused, therefore it shall not amount to nuisance.

In Dhanna Lal v. Chittar Singh3 , it was held that the ‘The test of a nuisance causing
personal discomfort is the actual local standard of comfort and not an ideal or absolute

2 Roshan Lal and Anr. v Banwari Lal and Anr. /RH/0398/1985

3 Dhanna Lal v. Chittar Singh /MP/0078/1959

10 | Page
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT
 standard’; Thus taking the precedent of this case the act of the respondent shall be ob-
served in light of the comfort level prevalent in the said locality and not according to the
prescribed standards for a residential area.

In Bhanwar Lal and Anr. vs. Dhanraj 4; it was held that it is an admitted position that
this part of the locality where the plaintiff resides and carries on his business is a mixed
colony where there is a market as well as residential houses It will be just and proper if the
defendant is allowed to run the shop where hammering of iron sheet is done during the
period between 8 a.m., to 8 p.m. i.e. he will not use the electric hammer during the night
i.e. between 8 p.m. to 8 a.m.

3. Private nuisance is the using or authorising the use of one’s property, or of anything under
one’s control, so as to injuriously affect an owner or occupier of property by phys-
ically injuring his property or affecting its enjoyment by interfering materially with
his health, comfort or convenience.

In order for an act to become a nuisance , the damage or discomfort caused must be sub-
stantial and out of the ordinary course of order.

SUBSTANTIAL DAMAGE

In George Philip v. Subbammal5 , it was held that in order to constitute an act of nuisance,
there must be interference with the use or enjoyment of land, or in connection with it, caus-
ing damage to the plaintiff. It was also held that every little discomfort or inconvenience
cannot be brought on to the category of actionable nuisance. In that case, the complaint
that the factory was the source of nuisance of the plaintiff's property was not held proved.

Thus taking precedent from the same case in the present scenario , there is no proof that
the damage or discomfort caused due to the respondent’s act is substantial and not merely
a trifle.

EXTRA ORDINARY CIRCUMSTANCES

This means that an act discomforting or causing damage to another shall not become nuisance
only on the contention that it has caused damage or prevented enjoyment of property, while
similar acts are prevalent around the establishment. Thus an act , beyond the ordinary course

4
Bhanwar Lal and Anr. vs. Dhanraj /RH/0059/1973
5
George Philip v. Subbammal /SC/0017/1956

11 | Page
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT
of order of things in the surrounding environment, causing damage or discomfort t an-
other person would be termed as nuisance.

1. Noise Pollution (control & regulation) Rules 2000

The said rules were enacted in order to curb the menace of noise pollution & to set specific
Ambient Air Quality standard with respect to Noise :

A. RULE 3 (2) empowers the The State Government to categorise the areas into industrial,
commercial, residential or silence areas/zones for the purpose of implementation of noise
standards for different areas.

B. Schedule 1 to the Rules provides with Ambient Air Quality standards in respect of Noise in
different areas:

Category of Day Time Night Time

Area Limits Limits (in db)
( in db)

Industrial Area 75 70
Commercial 65 55
Area
Residential 55 45
Area
Silence Zones 50 40
C.

A.

B. Now the manufacturing Unit is neither in the residential area nor its in a silence zone ,
where such heavy works are prohibited . The said unit falls in a mixed commercial area
where various similar units are running and is thus in no case an extra ordinary act of
private nuisance.

12 | Page
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT
In Gotham Construction Co. vs. Amulya Krishna Ghose and Ors., it was held that the
respondent being a construction company was working in an area surrounded by both residen-
tial plots and commercial ventures. The plaintiff cannot claim that the company’s act was in
violation of the 2000 Rules , as the said area could not be categorised as a Residential Area.

Thus taking precedent from the said case, the respondent’s unit in the present scenario also
can’t be deemed to be situated in a Residential Area.

D. Acc. To a survey done by Punjab Pollution Control Board, the noise of 85db and above
are harmful to the ears, the noise below the said range are still bearable.

Also as per Rule 8 of the noise rules 2000, a person may complain to the authorities if the
noms elevel increase by 11db or more.

2. Moreover the noise emerging from the said unit is below the prescribed range for com-
mercial areas, as various steps to reduce the resonance from machines and to prevent the trav-
elling of loud noises outside the premises have already been taken.

3. About 50-55 employees are working in more proximity than that of the plaintiff in the unit ,
who have never complained of any disturbance due to the noise.

4. The unit has been running since about 15-20 years. The adjacent sweet shop which is also
owned by the respondent, has been flourishing since the business started even then no customer
till date has stoped comping to the shops or complained of the loud noises. Moreover since the
pas t decade there has been no other complaint of nuisance being caused to any other resident
in the locality.

5.1. Thus upon analysis of these judgements and arguments its humbly submitted before the
honourable court , that, there must always be some noise which is the price we have to pay
for progress. It will accordingly be impossible to eliminate all noise and smell in a welfare
state and absolute and undisturbed peace may well be the peace of the grave yard.6The
incidence of nuisance, therefore, is to be projected on a bigger canvas and approached
from broader stand-points, which are but the concomitants of an industrial age, before
one can arrive at a just and proper determination thereof .

5.2 Thus the plaintiff cannot claim any tortious liability from the respondent as the noise from
the manufacturing unit is not a private nuisance.

6Anand & Sastri's Law of Torts, 4th Edition, 1980, pg 832-833:

13 | Page
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT
 ➢ THAT WHETHER THE SUIT FOR INJUNCTION IS MAINTAINABLE IN
THE HON’BLE COURT ?

1. Its most humbly submitted before the Honourable Court, that by declaring the said act as
not amounting to the tort of Private Nuisance is not the sole option to be relied upon. The
present suit filed by the plaintiff for injunction doesn’t stand ground, as it does not fulfil
the requirements for the same and the said suit is itself violative of Art. 19(1)(g) of the
Constitution Of India.

A. Ingredients of Injunction

An injunction is an equitable remedy in the form of a court order that requires a party to do, or
to refrain from doing, certain acts. It can either be Prohibitory or Mandatory. But before grant-
ing any injunction certain ingredients/essentials must be taken into account :

Irreparable & substantial damage

No other legal remedy is available

Irreparable & substantial damage

Relying upon a well known legal maxim , de minimum non carat lex, which means that court
should not be disturbed with trifling matters, this suit for induction can only be maintained if
the damage or discomfort caused proves to be substantial.

The expression irreparable damage however does not mean that there should be no possibility
of repairing the injury. It only means that the injury must be a material one, i.e., which cannot
be adequately compensated by damages. An injury will be regarded as irreparable where there
exists no certain pecuniary standard for measuring damages.

In Datta Mal Chiranji Lal vs L. Ladli Prasad And Anr. 7, it was held that in an action for
private nuisance, substantial damage or injury must be proved, which has not been done in the
present case. In this connection it was also urged that no evidence of injury to the house had
been produced and no finding had been recorded relating to substantial damage. The second
contention set out was that the houses of the parties were situate in the Library Bazar, a busy

7In Datta Mal Chiranji Lal vs L. Ladli Prasad And Anr. on 23 December, 1959

14 | Page
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT
market place in Mussoorie, and the standard of physical comfort and quietness demanded by
the plaintiff Was unreasonably high having regard to the locality where the plaintiff resided.
Therefore granting of injunction would lead to avoidable loss at the part of the employees of
the mill.

Thus taking the precedent of the said case, even in the present scenario it hasn’t been proved
whether the said act has caused any substantial injury or damage.
After taking into consideration the statements of the neighbours and the other people daily
visiting the locality, it can be said that the noise from the manufacturing unit of the respond-
ent has not caused any substantial damage or discomfort to the people, while the quietness
demanded of the locality by the plaintiff is indeed unrea - sonably high keeping in mind the
area of his residence.

Other Legal Remedies

Section 41(h) expressly provides that an Injunction cannot be granted when an equally effica-
cious relief can be obtained by any other usual mode of proceeding, except in case of breach
of trust.

In Giridhari Lal v. Smt. Mahaden Sharma8, the defendant was running flour- mill and oil
mill with the permission of the Municipality and, the Court observed that complete stoppage
should not be made as it would amount to avoidable loss, thus it ordered for awarding to the
plaintiff as an alternate relief.

In the present case too the plaintiff has alternative remedies available to him which can be
obtained by any other usual mode of proceeding. The alternative legal remedies available to
the plaintiff are:

• Damages-
The damages offered to the aggrieved party could be nominal damages i.e. damages just to
recognise that technically some harm has been caused to plaintiff or statutory damages i.e.
where the amount of damages is as decided by the statute and not dependent on the harm suf-
fered by the plaintiff or exemplary damages i.e. where the purpose of paying the damages is
not compensating the plaintiff, but to deter the wrongdoer from repeating the wrong committed
by him.

8Giridhari Lal v. Smt. Mahaden Sharma RLW 1968 401

15 | Page
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT
Section 40 in The Specific Relief Act, 1963 also provides for Damages in lieu of injunction
:
(1) The plaintiff in a suit for perpetual injunction under section 38, or mandatory injunction
under section 39, may claim damages in substitution for, such injunction and the court may, if
it thinks fit, award such damages.
(2) No relief for damages shall be granted under this section unless the plaintiff has claimed
such relief in his plaint: Provided that where no such damages have been claimed in the plaint,
the court shall, at any stage of the proceedings, allow the plaintiff to amend the plaint on such
terms as may be just for including such claim.

In the leading case of American Cyanamid Co. v. Ethicon Ltd.9, the House of Lords has
rightly pronounced the principle thus: “The governing principle is that the court should first
consider whether, if the plaintiff were to succeed at the trial in establishing his right to a per-
manent injunction, he would be adequately compensated by an award of damages for the loss
he would have sustained as a result of the defendant continuing to do what was sought to be
enjoined between the time of the application and the time of the trial.
If damages in the measure recoverable at common law would be adequate remedy and
the defendant would be in financial position to pay them, no injunction should normally
be granted, however strong the plaintiffs claim appeared to be at that stage”.

• Abatement-

It means the summary remedy or removal of a nuisance by the party injured without having
recourse to legal proceedings.
e.g. - The plaintiff himself cuts off the branch of tree of the defendant which hangs over his
premises and causes nuisance to him.

In Ramalal v. Calcutta Corporation10, it was held that before directing removal of nuisance
by injunction , the court must order its abatement or prevention. The allegations in that case
were that the workshop was creating nuisance of sound and smoke by the running of the mill
and that it was a source of danger to life, health and property of the adjoining neighbours.

An injured party in act of private nuisance may abate a private nuisance, provided it was due
to commission of an act. If the damage is caused by omission to do an act, then abatement is
not allowed.

Nuisance , whether public or private, can be abated without giving notice to the wrongdoer and
it would be justified if a speedy remedy s required.

9American Cyanamid Co. v. Ethicon Ltd., 27 DLR

10Ramalal v. Calcutta Corporation WB/0034/1966 : AIR1966Cal99

16 | Page
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT
General Rule - the abator of a private nuisance cannot remove any material further than nec-
essary, nor can he convert them to his own use. Thus only so much of a thing shall be removed
which is essential to remove the nuisance.

In G. Veerabhadrappa V M. Nagamma and Ors11., an appeal was filed against the order of
the lower court in the Karnataka High Court. It was held by the hon’ble court that , It was
unnecessary for Lower Courts to pass decree restraining Appellant from working chilly pound-
ing machine, if nuisance could be abated by adopting certain devices to prevent such nuisance.

• NOISE RULES 2000

Rule 8, Complaints to be made to the authority-

(1) A person may, if the noise level exceeds the ambient noise standards by 11 dB or more
given in the corresponding columns against any area/zone, make a complaint to the author-
ity.

(2) The authority shall act on the complaint and take action against the violator in accordance
with the provisions of these rules and any other law in force.

B. The suit is in violation of Article 19 (1) (g) of The Constitution of India

• ARTICLE 19(1) (G) r/w article 19(6) is a bar to the plaintiff’s suit for injunction.

• Article 19 deals with certain fundamental rights assured to the citizens of India under the
Constitution.
• Article 19 (1) (g) declares that all citizens as having the right to freedom to practice any
profession, or to carry on any occupation, trade or business.
• Thus under the right conferred upon by Article 19 (1) (g) of the Indian Constitution, even the
respondent has the freedom to practice any profession , carry on any occupation , trade or
business in any part of the nation.
• Thus if in the said suit an injunction is granted against the respondent, then it would violate
the freedom conferred upon the respondent under the said article.

• Article 19(6)12 puts certain restrictions upon the freedom conferred in article 19(1)(g), but
they seem inapplicable in the present scenario , as, the only restriction mentioned in Article

11In G. Veerabhadrappa V M. Nagamma and Ors/KA/0095/1988

12
Art.19(6) Nothing in Sub-clause (g) of the said clause shall affect the operation of any exist-
ing law in so far as it imposes, or prevent the State from making any law imposing, in the

17 | Page
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT
 19 (6) is to save the operation of existing law or empower the State to make law imposing
reasonable restrictions in the interest of the general public.

• As an action for private nuisance is not founded on any existing law imposing reasonable
restrictions in the interest of the general public, the existing Law of Torts relating to private
nuisance is no longer enforceable in view of the right to carry on trade or business guaranteed
under this Article 19 (1) (g).

• Thus this suit is violative of Article 19 (1) (g) of The Constitution Of India.

2. That in Christie v Davey, court passed an order that there was no malicious intention on the
part of the defendant and that the defendant was making lawfull use of his premises, so no
injunction could be granted to restrain the lawful act of the defendant

3. Section 41 in The Specific Relief Act, 1963 provides for instances where Injunction
is refused.—

Section 41 (f) of the act says that an injunction cannot be granted—

to prevent, on the ground of nuisance, an act of which it is not reasonably clear that it will
be a nuisance.

Thus in the present case, as its not clear whether the damage caused is substantial or not , &
whether the act causing the same is extra ordinary or not, it cannot be said that the noise from
respondent’s manufacturing unit will amount to nuisance or not.therefore as per section 41 (f)
of the specific relief act ,1963 injunction shall not be granted.

4. Its thus humbly submitted before the honourable court that ,in light of these judgements, it
can be relied upon that the said suit filed by the plaintiff seeking injunction against the re-
spondent is unable to hold its ground as no proof of any substantial damage or any extra
ordinary act leading to the same is available.

5. Also there lie various alternate remedies with the plaintiff, which can be obtained through
ordinary proceedings. Moreover the said suit for injunction is violation of the article 19(1)(g)
of The Indian Constitution.

interests of the general public, reasonable restriction on the exercise of the right conferred by
the said sub-clause, and in particular nothing in the said sub-clause, shall affect the operation
of any existing law in so far as it relates to, or prevents the State from making any law relating
to.—
(i) the professional or technical qualifications necessary for practising any profession or car-
rying on any occupation, trade or business, or

(ii) the carrying on by the State, or by a corporation owned or controlled by the State, of any
trade, business, industry or service, whether to the exclusion, complete or partial, of citizens or
otherwise.

18 | Page
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT
6. All law must progress or it must perish in the esteem of man." With the progress of civili-
sation, the concept of law and its outer periphery must extend so that it may keep pace
with the mounting needs of society.” Thus keeping in mind the same and observing this
case with a progressive mind, the said suit is not maintainable in the Hon’ble Court.

PRAYER

Wherefore in the light of facts of the instant case, written pleadings and authorities cited, it is
humbly prayed before this Hon'ble CIVIL COURT , MOHALI that it may be pleased to hold,
adjudge and declare:

1. THAT NO TORTIOUS LIABILITY OF THE RESPONDENT FOR THE ALLEGED

ACT OF PRIVATE NUISANCE EXISTS.

19 | Page
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT
 2. THAT THE PLAINTIFF’S SUIT FOR INJUNCTION IS NOT MAINTAINABLE
AND THEREFORE INJUNCTION MAY NOT BE GRANTED.

Or/And

May pass any other order, which the court may deem fit in light of the facts of the case, evi-
dences adduced justice, equity and good conscience.

ALL OF WHICH IS RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED

Sd/-
Counsel for the Respondents

20 | Page
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT