In an industrial area, a person must put up with a certain amount of noise, and the addition of a fresh noise caused by the defendant's works may be so substantial as to create a legal nuisance.

A.N.Grover, J.

1. This order will dispose of both the appeals. (Regular Second Appeal No. 1350 of 1957 and Regular Second Appeal No. 135 of 1958).

2. In order to appreciate the points involved in the appeals it is necessary to state the facts shortly. On the 20th June 1954 Munsha Singh sold a house to Ram Rattan. Later on there was some agreement between Munsha Singh and Ram Rattan in August, 1954 which was attested by Dalip Singh, the son of Munsha Singh, according to which Ram-Rattan was allowed to set up power-looms in they house which had been sold to him. Munsha Singh declared that he would have no objection to the working of the power looms by day or at night. After applying for sanction of the Municipal Committee, Ram Rattan set up two power-looms in the house which he had purchased from Munsha Singh. Four days before the sanction was granted a suit was filed by Munna Lal, a neighbour of Ram Rattan, and Dalip Singh, the son of Munsha Singh, for a permanent injunction restraining Ram Rattan-and his brother from working the power-looms which, according to the plantiffs, amounted to a nuisance and from continuing the same and making any further addition to the looms. The Municipal Committee was also impleaded as defendant No. 8. The trial Court after framing the necessary issues came to the conclusion that the working off the two power-looms in dispute caused considerable noise although it was not unbearable but all the same it affected the health, comfort and sleep of the plaintiffs and their family members and if allowed to be aggravated, it might amount to a nuisance. A decree was granted for permanent injunction calling upon defendants Nos. 1 and 2 not to get licence for any further power-looms nor to set up .any other looms besides the two power looms which were already being worked in the premises. A further decree was granted restraining defen-dant No. 3 from giving licence for any more power-looms to defendants Nos. 1 and 2. The prayer with regard to the grant of permanent injunction restraining defendants Nos. 1 and 2 from working the existing two looms was refused. The plaintiffs and defendants Nos. 1 and 2 were dissatisfied, and filed two separate appeals which were disposed of by the learned Senior Subordinate Judge an 9th November, 1957. The learned Judge came to the conclusion that from the evidence of the parties it was evident that the locality where the house was situate was industrial and most of the houses had electric meters and in that area various industries were being run and it had become a sort of manufacturing and industrial area. He agreed with the decision of the lower Court that the working of the two power-looms caused considerable noise although it was not unbearable and if allowed to be augmented it anight amount to a nuisance. The appeal of the defendants was dismissed. While disposing of the appeal of the plaintiffs it was stated as follows :

"Considering all the circumstances of the case and while upholding the judgment and decree of the learned lower Court, I further grant the plaintiffs a decree for permanent injunction restraining defendants Nos. 1 and 2 from working the already exis-ting two power-looms in dispute at night from 9 p.m to 6 a.m."

To this extent the decree was modified. The plaintiffs as well as the defendants have come up in appeal to this Court. The Municipal Committee never filed any appeal before the lower appellate Court nor has any appeal been preferred here by the Committee.

3. Mr. Kishan Sarup Thapar who has argued the defendants appeal has contended that the lower appellate Court was in error in modifying the decree which had been granted by the trial Court. It is pointed out that no reasons have been given for making the modification in the matter of working of the looms and for restraining the defendants from working the same at night between 9 p. m. and 6 a. m. Mr. Thapar has relied on the decision of the trial Court which was based on a correct appre