Require littile bit more
Arvind Singh Chauhan
(Querist) 04 December 2011
This query is : Resolved
Plaese Sir contribute more on my query-
as
http://www.lawyersclubindia.com/experts/Injunction-suit-to-stop-nusisance-255366.asp
M/s. Y-not legal services
(Expert) 04 December 2011
whats your further doubt mr.arvind?
our senior members given detailed opinion on your query..
if you have any more question mean just ask it
Arvind Singh Chauhan
(Querist) 04 December 2011
I have explained the problem there elaborately plz brother go once. to remove confusion.
Guest
(Expert) 04 December 2011
Any benefit in opening different threads for a single query when you have not only given the reference of last thread in this post and in the last post you have asked to refer another thread?
Do you expect that the experts should continue to open one after the other threads?
Arvind Singh Chauhan
(Querist) 04 December 2011
Sorry Sir but, it is only reminder, that member may go to previous thread which they have answered, and may see what I have added there.
M/s. Y-not legal services
(Expert) 04 December 2011
DEAR DHINGRA SIR, THIS IS MR.ARVIND'S EARLIER THREAD: HE MAY BE NOT ABLE TO PASTE IT HERE., NOW HELP HIM
Injunction suit to stop nusisance Report Abuse
Category : Civil Law | This query is : open
author : arvind
Posted On
03 December 2011
Please seniors provide the limitation period for seeking injunction to stop nuisance.
Expert : Nadeem Qureshi 9953809956, 925
Posted On
03 December 2011
i think there is no limitation, if i am not correct then correct me
Expert : a.manoharan
Posted On
04 December 2011
before injunction , any declaration is needed , 3 years for any declaration
Expert : R.Ramachandran
Posted On
04 December 2011
Nuisance, if at all, is a continuing cause of action and therefore there can be no application of any period of limitation. In any case, the continuance of the nuisance has to be appropriately averred in the plaint.
Expert : Advocate Bhartesh goyal
Posted On
04 December 2011
No limitation for continuing nuisence.
Expert : S.GANESAN.LAWYER
Posted On
04 December 2011
it is a tort. getting relief under specific relief act for mandatory or permanent injunction the relief must be sought within 3 years if there is no continuation. if continued each nuisance causes the fresh cause of action.
Expert : Shailesh Kr. Shah
Posted On
04 December 2011
No limitation.
author : arvind
Posted On
04 December 2011
is there any case law that nuisance is a continuous cause of action.
Expert : R.Ramachandran
Posted On
04 December 2011
Dear Mr. Arvind,
Are you talking about any nuisance that took place say a year or two back? Or you talking about the nuisance which you are suffering even today?
Expert : Rajaraman.A.K
Posted On
04 December 2011
Though there is no limitation is prescribed for invoking suit against nuisance, delay and acquiescence would be sorted out. So inspite of showing continuous cause of action, you should be ready to explain to the court why you have not approached the court at earlier point of time.
Limitation is legal defense whereas delay and acquiescence are defense merge out of equity.
It also to noted that while granting injunction, every court will consider the three major things like Prima facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable lose. Please consider all these point to be demonstrate before a civil.
In case the said nuisance is hazardous to public health and safety, you are entitle to file a criminal complaint.
The choice is based on the nature of nuisance that you are encountering.
Expert : tom.advocate
Posted On
04 December 2011
senior members cleared this query., i like mr.rajaraman's explination.,
dear arvind still if you getting suffer mean you can seek injunction, unless you can not seek injunction for past days., also its not necessary.,
Expert : Rajeev Kumar
Posted On
04 December 2011
There is no limitation
Expert : Advocate. Arunagiri
Posted On
04 December 2011
What is that Nuisance you are referring to?
Based on this I can give my opinion.
Expert : prabhakar singh
Posted On
04 December 2011
YOU WANTED TO KNOW LIMITATION MR.R.Ramachandran PROVIDED YOU.
MANY ADDED TOO.
THEN YOU WANTED CASE LAW AND YOU HAD A PRIMER ON INJUNCTIONS.I KNOW YOU KNOW ALL THAT.
A FEW CASE LAWS FOR YOU ARE BELOW GIVEN:.
Private nuisance is a continuous, unlawful and indirect interference with the use or enjoyment of land, or of some right over or in connection with it. Lord Lloyd in Hunter vCanary Wharf [1997] 2 All ER 426, stated that private nuisances are of three kinds. Theyare (1) nuisance by encroachment on a neighbour's land; (2) nuisance by direct physicalinjury to a neighbour's land; and (3) nuisance by interference with a neighbour's quietenjoyment of his land.Proof of damage is usually necessary.Foreseeability of harm is a prerequisite of the recovery of damages in private and also public nuisance: per Lord Goff, Cambridge Water v Eastern Counties Leather [1994] 1 AllER 53 at 71-2
'Raylands v. Fletcher', (1868)
INDIAN CASES:...
Rajrup Koer vs Abul Hossein And Ors. on 14 July, 1880
Equivalent citations: (1881) ILR 6 Cal 394
District Board Of Manbhum vs Shyamapada Sarkar And Ors. on 20 July, 1955
Equivalent citations: AIR 1955 Pat 432, 1955 (3) BLJR 492
In Municipal Board, Manglaur v. Mahadeoji Maharaj, AIR 1965 SC 1147
Brajabandhu Mohapatra And Ors. vs Gopal Chandra Mohapatra And Anr. on 7 October, 1972
Equivalent citations: AIR 1973 Ori 189
Firm Pyarelal Satpal And Ors. vs Santlal And Ors. on 21 September, 1971
Equivalent citations: 1971 (4) WLN 543
Madireddy Padma Rambabu And Ors. vs District Forest Officer, ... on 26 July, 2001
Equivalent citations: 2002 (1) ALD 728, 2002 (3) ALT 57
Expert : prabhakar singh
Posted On
04 December 2011
In brief the plaintiff has to prove, firstly that a damage has been caused, directly or indirectly to the land, secondly the interference was unreasonable and non-trivial, thirdly the interference occurred repeatedly, fourthly and importantly that he has title to sue, and finally that the defendant is legally capable of being liable. To determine accountability for an alleged nuisance, a court will examine three factors: whether the defendant's intentionally, negligently, or recklessly interfered with the plaintiff's use and enjoyment of the land, whether there has been a substantial interference with the plaintiff's interest, and the reasonableness of the defendant's conduct.
author : arvind
Posted On
04 December 2011
Thanks a lot Prabhakar Sir Let me go through the citations, thanks a lot.
Sir plz go to to the link relating to the same problem-
http://www.lawyersclubindia.com/experts/Limitation-246996.asp
Sir nuisance was caused in march 2005. which was on the land of Indian army. plaintiff complained on June 2005 to SDM. SDM called report from revenue authorities and police station on july 2005.
On the basis of police report, action under section 133 Cr.P.C. was taken by SDM. After hearing on August 2005 SDM ordered to defendant to remove nuisance, but he filed revision . Revisional court set aside the order of SDM on Feb 2007 with finding that it is a matter of civil court as being a private nuisance.
In my plaint I mentioned the cause of action from the date of judgment of revisional court as 05-02-2007.
As the land in which nuisance was created was defence land and i have to make defence authorities party. I issued them notice under 80 C.P.C on Oct 2008.
I filed the suit for injunction on April 2010. Defendant says it is beyond limitation referring Art 113 of schedule given in Limitation Act.
My version is limitation should be counted from the date of answer of Notice. Even if period is counted from judgment of revisional court. Period of notice 60 days should be excluded as provided Sec 15 (2) Limitation Period.
Please help and guide.
Devajyoti Barman
(Expert) 04 December 2011
Dear Arvind
Could you spell out your doubt? The replies are quite clear and right.
It means that if the nuisance is still subsisting then you can file suit in any time as long as it is continuing irrespective of the time when it had started.
prabhakar singh
(Expert) 04 December 2011
Dear Mr.Arvind !
I have attended your further post.you were chasing me and my view was against your notion hence i was waiting you to go off line
as it was harsh on my part to shock some one for his live case.
Arvind Singh Chauhan
(Querist) 04 December 2011
Respected Prabhakar Sir thanks for paying me heed. I have gone through your opinion on my original thread also.
Now I will stick on the point that " Private nuisance is continuous one and requires no limitation ".
I am unable to find out judgments cited by due to lack of old collection of AIR. I will try somewhere.
Thanks to all seniors and specially to Mr. Tom for getting me and sharing my problem.
prabhakar singh
(Expert) 04 December 2011
You may search them on indiakanoon.Most probably you shall get and many more.
