Challenge is against Ext.P1 order dated 02.04.2014 whereby the lower court dismissed I.A.No.7440/2013 in O.S.No.157/2013 pending before the Munsiff Court, Ernakulam. 2. The matter relates to the nuisance caused by certain persons to the plaintiff who was residing nearby by playing Badminton in front of the residential building of the plaintiff. An interim injunction was granted as per I.A.No.1107/2013 restraining the members of the 1st defendant Association from playing shuttle in such a way so as to cause nuisance to the plaintiff till disposal of the suit. When that order was blatantly violated, the petitioner approached the court below by filing I.A.No.7440/2013 seeking for a direction to comply with the order in I.A.No.1107/2013 and prevent continuation of nuisance. The court below observed that there was no evidence to establish the claim of nuisance and the petition was dismissed. The
O.P.(C) No.1377/2014 2
petitioner has produced Exts.P3, P4 and P5 which, according to the petitioner, are sufficient to show that the complaint of the petitioner is genuine and nuisance is in fact caused to the petitioner.
3. During the course of proceedings, it has come out that the property where nuisance is being created belongs to GCDA. Ext.P3 is a communication issued by the Sub Inspector of Police, Ernakulam to the Secretary, GCDA informing him that a complaint has been received from the petitioner with regard to nuisance and since the property belongs to GCDA, GCDA should be taken such steps as are necessary. More important is Exts.P4 and P5 which are communications issued by the District Collector to the Revenue Divisional Officer as well as to the Assistant Commissioner of Police to take such steps as are necessary to prevent nuisance and disturbance being caused in the locality. To be more precise, in Ext.P5 it is stated that even in the night time, nuisance is caused to the residents of Kasturba Nagar and the District Collector had directed the Assistant Commissioner of Police to take action. It is disappointing to note that no action
O.P.(C) No.1377/2014 3
has been taken.
4. In the light of Exts.P3, P4 and P5, the court below was not justified in coming to the conclusion that no nuisance is being caused to the petitioner and his family.
5. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, it is felt that a reconsideration of the issue is necessary in the light of Exts.P3 to P5.
Therefore, this petition is allowed and the impugned order is set aside and the matter is remanded to the trial court for fresh consideration in the light of the documents made mention of above.
Sd/-
P.BHAVADASAN JUDGE smp