1. Whether the act of the defendant amounts to nuisance?

1.1. The defendant in the present case has disturbed the plaintiff of his
peaceful enjoyment of the property, by causing disturbances in the
neighbourhood by playing “lazan” at an odd hour of 4 am. It not only
disturbs the sleep of the plaintiff but also the entire vicinity.

1.2. This act of the defendant amounts to nuisance. Nuisance means an act
which gives rise to unlawful, unwarranted or unreasonable annoyance
or discomfort to the plaintiff and which results in damage to the
property of the plaintiff or interfere with his use and enjoyment of his
land.

1.3. The defendant mosque is situated in close proximity with the plaintiff’s
residence. The defendant mosque every day at about 4 am, makes loud
noise by playing “lazan”. This act of the defendant mosque is disturbing
the peaceful sleep of the plaintiff. This in turn has led to unlawful,
unwarranted and unreasonable annoyance and discomfort to the
plaintiff’s use and enjoyment of his property. It may also be noted that,
this act of the defendant is not only disturbing the peaceful enjoyment
of the property by the plaintiff alone, but all the members of the
neighbourhood. This has led to public nuisance.

1.4. The constitution of Syndia in its Art. 21 provides for Right to Life and
Personal Liberty to all the people of the country. The right to life and
personal liberty includes within its ambit “Right to sleep”. The Supreme
Court in the case of Ramlila Maidan V/S Home Secretary, Union of India
has held that “Right to sleep” comes under the ambit of Art. 21 i.e.,
Right to life and personal liberty. And also, has held that, every citizen
is entitled under Article 21 of the Constitution to live in a decent
environment and has the right to sleep peacefully at night.

1.5. In Sayeed Maqsood Ali V/s State of Madhya Pradesh, the Hon’ble High
Court of Madhya Pradesh has highlighted the importance of sleep and
has held that:
 “Every citizen is entitled under Article 21 of the Constitution to live in
a decent environment and has the right to sleep peacefully at night.
Not for nothing it has been said sleep is the best cure for waking
troubles and the sleep of a labouring man is sweet. Sleep brings
serenity. Lack of sleep creates lack of concentration, irritability and
reduced efficiency. It cannot be lost sight of that silence invigorates the
mind, energizes the body and quiets the soul. That apart, the solitude
can be chosen as a companion by a citizen. No one has a right to affect
the rights of others to have proper sleep, peaceful living atmosphere
and undisturbed thought. No citizen can be compelled to suffer
annoying effects of noise as that eventually leads to many a malady
which includes cardio vascular disturbance, digestive disorders and
neuro psychiatric disturbance.”

These decisions of the hon’ble Supreme Court of India and the hon’ble
High Court of Madhya Pradesh throw a light as to how important the
sleep is to the human body by including sleep under the ambit of
Article 21 of the Constitution and making it a fundamental right.

1.6. Enjoyment of the property includes, enjoying the whole property as

one likes without disturbing others and without any disturbances from
others. Sleeping is a way through which one can relax and put his stress
out. Thus, sleep is also included in the term ‘enjoyment of the property
without any disturbance. Thus, this act of the defendant mosque of
making loud noise in the early hours of the morning which affect the
sleep of the neighbourhood amounts to nuisance.

1.7. The hon’ble High Court of Allahabad, has, in the case of Irfan v/s State
of U.P (Writ-C No. 12350 of 2022), held that, use of loudspeakers from
mosque is not a fundamental right.

1.8. The hon’ble High Court of Calcutta, in the case of Moulana Mufti Syed
Md. Noorur Rehman Barkati v. State of West Bengal, (1998 SCC OnLine
Cal 73), it was held that ‘Azan’ is an essential part of Islam; however,
the use of loudspeakers is not an essential part of ‘Azan’ itself.
1.9. The above decisions of the various high courts suggest that, though
“lazan” is an essential part of the Kaslam community, use of
loudspeakers is not. Therefore, the use of loud speaker causes
nuisance in the neighbourhood.

1.10. In one of the decided foreign cases regarding the tort of nuisance,
Solatu v. De Held [(1851) 2 Sim NS 133], the plaintiff resided in a house
next to a Roman Catholic Chapel of which the defendant was the priest
and the chapel bell was rung at all hours of the day and night. It was
held that the ringing was a public nuisance.

1.11. The case in hand also stands on the same pedestal as the above case,
where the defendant mosque makes loud noise of “lazan” at an
untimely hour of the day when most of people in the neighbourhood
would be sleeping. This act of the defendant amounts to nuisance.
2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for a permanent injunction against the
defendant?

2.1. Section 38 (3) (c) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 provides for the right
to obtain perpetual injunction for the plaintiff, 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, where the invasion is such that compensation in money would
not afford adequate relief.

2.2. In the case in hand, the invasion is of such a nature that, it is difficult
to ascertain the value of one’s sleep. And the invasion caused by the
defendant is so abstract that, it can be experienced only by the persons
who under go the pain of losing the sleep. As discussed earlier, sleep
forms an essential part of the human life. Which, if not had properly,
affects all the activities throughout the day. Thus, the court in this case
has the power to grant the injunction as is referred to in the Sec. 38
(3)(c) of the Act.

2.3. The provisions of CPC in section 91 specifically provides for instituting

a suit for obtaining injunction in case of public nuisance. The present
case also falls within the ambit of the public nuisance because, the
people affected by the noise made by the ‘lazan’ is large. Thus, the
plaintiff has the right obtain injunction against the defendants from
using loud speakers early in the morning.

2.4. The case of Solatu v. De Held (supra) can be referred to here. In that
case, the plaintiff resided in a house next to a Roman Catholic Chapel
of which the defendant was the priest and the chapel bell was rung at
all hours of the day and night. It was held that the ringing was a public
nuisance and the plaintiff was held entitled to an injunction.

2.5. Another case can be referred to here, in Datta Mal Chiranji Lal v. Lodh
Prasad, [ AIR 1960 All 632]: the defendant established an electric flour
mill adjacent to the plaintiff's house in a bazaar locality and the running
of the mill produced such noise and vibrations that the plaintiff and his
 family, did not get peace and freedom from noise to follow their
normal avocations during the day. They did not have a quiet rest at
night also.
It was held that the running of the mill amounted to nuisance which
should not be permitted.

2.6. From the above cases it can be inferred that, anything that infringes
one’s right to enjoy the property can be called a nuisance and the
plaintiff has every right to protect his interest by obtaining a
permanent injunction against the defendant to that effect.

2.7. The act of the defendant mosque is also against the order of the
government dated 10.05.2022 vide notification no. FEE 128 EPC 2022,
which states that use of loud speakers in residential, commercial,
industrial, silent zones between 10 pm to 6 am is prohibited. And
anybody who violates this would be subject to penal actions according
to certain provisions of the Environmental (Protection) Act of 1986.

2.8. Thus, keeping in mind all the above factors, the plaintiff humbly prays
before this hon’ble court to grant a permanent injunction against the
defendant mosque prohibiting it from using loud speakers for prayer
purposes which disturbs the peaceful enjoyment of property of the
plaintiff as well as the neighbourhood.
 1. Whether the suit is maintainable?

1.1. The suit is filed in the competent court as per section 9 of the CPC, which
gives power to a civil court to try all kinds of civil matters unless barred.
This present suit is of civil in nature and the court is competent to try it.
1.2. The present suit is instituted as per the provisions of the Code of Civil
Procedure [Section 26 and Order 4 Rule 1]
1.3. The suit is well within time and is not barred by limitation.
1.4. The suit is instituted in the proper territorial jurisdiction where the
plaintiff and defendant are ordinarily residing and where the cause of
action arose.
1.5. The court fee is properly paid.
1.6. Thus, considering the above points, it can be said that suit is maintainable.
 PRAYER

In the light of the facts of the case, issues raised, arguments advanced
and authorities cited, the counsel on behalf of the respondent humbly
prays before this hon’ble Court to kindly adjudge that:

1. The suit is maintainable.

2. The act of the defendant amounts to nuisance.

3. The plaintiff is entitled to the relief of permanent injunction against

the defendant.

4. Until the suit is finally decided, the plaintiff seeks temporary

injunction against the defendant from using loud speakers early in the
morning for ‘lazan’.

AND/OR
s
5. Pass any other order which the bench deems fit in the best interest of
justice, equity and good conscience and for this act of kindness, the
counsel on behalf of the plaintiff as in duty bound shall forever pray.

Respectfully Submitted by the

Counsel for Plaintiff