NM2995/11 in 2713/11 1 Dt : 27.09.

2013

IN THE BOMBAY CITY CIVIL COURT AT BOMBAY

NOTICE OF MOTION NO.2995 OF 2011
IN
S.C. SUIT NO.2713 OF 2011

1] Dilip Sumanlal Shah,  )
aged 71 years,Sr.Citizen, )
Occupation : Business )
2] Mrs.Meena Dilip Shah, )
aged 68, Sr.Citizen, )
Occupation : Housewife, )
Both Indian Inhabitants, )
Residing at E/10, Venus )
Apartments, R.G. Thadani )
Marg,Worli,Mumbai 400018. )... Plaintiffs

Versus

1] Mrs.Padma Thakore,  )
Aged : not known, )
Occupation : not known. )
2] Jigisha Thakore,  )
Aged : not known, )
Occupation : not known. )
Residing at E/14, Venus )
Co­operative Housing )
Society Ltd., Worli  )
Seaface, R.G. Thadani  )
Marg,Worli,Mumbai 400018. )
3] Venus Co­operative  )
Housing Society Ltd., a )
Co­operative Housing )
Society incorporated  )
under the provisions of  )
Maharashtra Co­operative )
Housing Societies Act, )
1960 and having its  )
NM2995/11 in 2713/11 2 Dt : 27.09.2013

registered office at R.G. )
Thadani Marg, Worli  )
Seaface (South),  )
Mumbai – 400 018. )... Defendants 

Adv.Mr.Kalpesh Joshi for the plaintiffs.
Adv.Ms.Vaishali Ugale for the defendants.

CORAM :  HIS HONOUR JUDGE
SHRI M.T.GAIKWAD (C.R.NO.30)
DATE  :  27.09.2013

ORAL ORDER

The   plaintiffs   herein   have   taken   out   this 

notice   of   motion   inter­alia   praying   for   grant   of 

interim injunction restraining defendant Nos.1 and 2, 

their family members, servants, agents from creating 

nuisance   to   themselves   and   other   occupants   of   the 

building by feeding the birds with water and grains 

or   such   eatables   from   their   balcony   or   any   part 

thereof   and   for   removal   of   the   said   metal   tray 

attached   to   their   balcony,   more   particularly   on   the 

grounds   set   out   in   the   affidavit   filed   in   support 

thereto.
NM2995/11 in 2713/11 3 Dt : 27.09.2013

2. The   defendant   Nos.1   and   2   filed   their 

affidavit   in   reply   to   the   notice   of   motion   on 

21.01.2012   and   denied   all   the   material   allegations 

made against them.   According to the defendant No.2, 

she   is   an   animal   welfare   activist   and   the   Hon. 

Secretary of the All India Animal Welfare Association 

(AIAWA)   since   1988   and   run   a   shelter/   sterilization 

centre   at   Brihanmumbai   Mahapalika's   Dog   Pound 

situated at Mahalaxmi Dhobi Ghat and she is also the 

Managing   Trustee   of   another   Charitable   Trust 

“Vatsalya”,   which   is   setting   up   a   permanent   shelter 

for   infirm   animals   and   birds   in   the   near   future. 

According   to   the   defendant   No.2,   defendant   No.2   is 

her   old   aged   mother,   she   is   retired   as   the   Station 

Director of All India Radio and also freedom fighter 

and the plaintiff No.2 has been a regular supplier of 

medical and surgical equipments to her NGO named All 

India Animal Welfare Association.  
NM2995/11 in 2713/11 4 Dt : 27.09.2013

3. According   to   the   defendants,   the   suit   filed 

by   the   plaintiffs   is   false,   malafide   and   vexatious 

and   filed   with   an   ulterior   motive   to   harass   them. 

Since   the   suit   is   filed   against   the   members   of   the 

society   (defendant   No.3)   and   also   filed   by   the 

members of the defendant No.3 of which they are also 

the members and which virtually a dispute false under 

section 91 of the Maharashtra Co­operative Societies 

Act, 1960, the jurisdiction of the court to try and 

entertain the suit is therefore, ousted.  

4. The   defendants   submit   in   the   written 

statement   that   the   plaintiffs   are   guilty   of   offence 

under   section   11(1)(a)   of   the   Prevention   of   Cruelty 

to   Animals   Act,   1960   and   are   unnecessarily   causing 

pain   or   suffering   to   the   birds   by   hitting   the   said 

tray to shoo off the birds when they come for eating. 

The   plaintiffs   however,   had   suppressed   the   material 

facts   from   the   court.     Their   conduct   is   thus, 

blameworthy   and   this   totally   dis­entitled   them   from 

NM2995/11 in 2713/11 5 Dt : 27.09.2013

any   kind   of   discretionary   or   equitable   reliefs. 

According to the defendants, plaintiff No.1 is aware 

of the charitable activities of defendant No.2 and in 

the   past   he   has   appreciated   the   feeding   of   birds. 

For over 10 years, there had been no complaint from 

the   plaintiffs   and/or   any   members   of   the   society. 

However,   suddenly,   in   2009,   the   plaintiffs   raised 

this   issue   to   a   high   pitch   only   to   harass   them. 

According   to   the   defendants,   the   birds   are   the 

creatures of the sky and to feed them at a height is 

the most sensible method.  According to them, if the 

birds are fed at the ground level, there is always a 

fear   that   the   birds   may   come   under   a   car   or   get 

caught by some other animals such as cats, dogs, etc. 

According to the defendant No.2, she feeds the birds 

systematically   and   also   feeds   farsan   to   crows   from 

their kitchen window in morning around 9.00 a.m. and 

at   1.00   p.m.   over   the   chajja   of   the   master   bedroom 

and   around   2.30   p.m.   feeds   pigeons.     She   feeds 

pigeons   with   food­grains   like,   jowar   thrice   a   day. 

NM2995/11 in 2713/11 6 Dt : 27.09.2013

According   to   the   defendants,   unlike   the   defendants 

there are other members of the society building who 

are   also   feeding   the   birds   from   their   respective 

flats.     Shri   O.D.   Purohit   residing   in   Flat   No.5, 

Block F and Shri Bhatia residing in Flat No.37, Block 

G of the defendant No.3 – society's building are two 

of   the   several   members   who   are   feeding   birds.     The 

defendants however submit that they have not created 

any nuisance or problem or committed any illegal act 

by feeding the birds.   The allegations made in that 

regard   in   the   notice   of   motion   and   the   supporting 

affidavit   of   the   plaint   are   false   and   prayed   to 

dismiss the notice of motion.

5. The   plaintiffs   filed   rejoinder   to   the 

affidavit in reply filed by the defendant No.2 dated 

15.03.2012   and   denied   all   the   material   allegations 

made   against   them   in   the   affidavit   in   reply.     The 

plaintiff   at   the   outset   repeated   and   reiterated   and 

confirmed   whatever   is   stated   by   them   in   the   plaint 

NM2995/11 in 2713/11 7 Dt : 27.09.2013

and notice of motion.   According to the plaintiffs, 

the defendants filed their written statement with an 

ulterior motive to delay and defeat their claims.  In 

so far as jurisdiction point is concerned, according 

to the plaintiffs, section 91 of the Maharashtra Co­

operative Society Act, 1960 no doubt deals with any 

dispute   touching   the   constitution,   elections   of   the 

committee   or   its   officers   other   than   election 

committees   of   the   specified   societies   including   its 

officers, conduct of general meetings, management or 

business   of   society   and   does   not   deal   with   the 

dispute   pertaining   to   torts   and   civil   rights.   This 

Hon'ble   Court   thus,   has   jurisdiction   to   try   and 

entertain   the   present   suit.     According   to   the 

plaintiffs,   they   have   made   number   of   complaints   to 

get   rid   of   the   nuisance   caused   by   the   defendants 

every   day.     According   to   the   plaintiff,   they 

themselves   and   the   defendant   No.3   has   also   made 

several   efforts   to   resolve   the   dispute   and 

differences, but the defendants did not pay any heed 
NM2995/11 in 2713/11 8 Dt : 27.09.2013

to their efforts and go on feeding birds from their 

windows.  The birds are causing hygienic problems and 

that may cause any severe disease to them and thus, 

prayed to allow the notice of motion.     

6. In   view   of   the   submissions   made   by   the 

Ld.Advocates   of   both   the   sides   and   the   contentions 

raised   in   the   notice   of   motion   and   supporting 

affidavit,   following   points   arise   for   my 

determination with my findings thereon as under :­

SR.  POINTS FINDINGS

NO.
(1) Do the plaintiffs prove the In the affirmative.
prima facie case ?
(2) In   whose   favour   balance   of In   favour   of   the 
convenience tilt ? plaintiffs.
(3) To   whom   irreparable   injury To the plaintiffs.
would be caused ?

R E A S O N S

As to point Nos.1 & 2 together :­

7. From   the   pleadings   and   evidence   filed   on 

record,   it   is   an   admitted   fact   that   the   plaintiffs 

NM2995/11 in 2713/11 9 Dt : 27.09.2013

are   the   occupants   of   flat   bearing   No.E/10   at   “E” 

Block   in   the   building   known   as   Venus   Co­operative 

Housing   Society   (“the   said   building”)   comprising   of 

stilt   plus   20   upper   floors   respectively.     The 

defendant   No.3   is   society   who   is   the   owner   of   the 

said building, which is formed by the flat purchasers 

in the said building.  It is also not in dispute that 

the   defendants   have   installed   a   metal   tray   outside 

their balcony window for feeding grains and water to 

the birds initially. The plaintiffs have their window 

beneath   the   said   window   balcony   of   the   defendants. 

In the light of these admitted facts to buttress the 

contention, the plaintiffs affirmed in the affidavit 

filed alongwith notice of motion as well as rejoinder 

to   the   reply   filed   by   the   defendants   dated 

15.03.2012.  

8. The   Ld.Adv.Mr.   Kalpesh   Joshi   for   the 

plaintiffs submits vehemently that the plaintiffs and 

defendant   Nos.1   and   2   are   residing   in   the   same 

NM2995/11 in 2713/11 10 Dt : 27.09.2013

building i.e. E­Block in the building known as “Venus 

Co­operative   Housing   Society”.   The   plaintiffs   have 

their flat being Flat No.E/10 and the defendants have 

their flat being Flat No.E/14 situated above the flat 

of plaintiffs.  The next submission of the Ld.Adv.Mr. 

Joshi   that   the   defendants   installed   the   metal   tray 

out   of   their   window   balcony   for   feeding   the   birds. 

The number of birds like pigeons, gathered there to 

eat   the   food­grains.     They   caused   hindrance   and 

nuisance to the plaintiffs early in the morning.  The 

plaintiffs therefore, have to close the window.   If 

the window is closed then it causes obstructions to 

the   light   and   air.   According   to   the   Adv.Mr.Joshi, 

there   are   lot   of   insects   to   the   body   of   the   bird, 

they   may   cause   respiratory   diseases   like   Asthama. 

The   plaintiff's   wife   suffers   from   the   same   disease 

like   Asthama.   The   plaintiffs   made   complaints   to   the 

society informing this fact for redressal of dispute 

and   for   removal   of   nuisance.   Ld.Adv.Mr.   Joshi   drawn 

my attention to the photographs (Exhibit 1­A annexed 
NM2995/11 in 2713/11 11 Dt : 27.09.2013

to   the   plaint)   (page   16)   inter­alia   contending   that 

the photographs show the situation of the flat of the 

plaintiffs   and   defendants.   The   metal   tray   is 

installed   by   support   of   the   iron   strips,   where   the 

birds like pigeons eat and drink water.   Some birds 

are seating on the balcony of the plaintiff's window. 

Thus, the act of bird feeding done by the defendants 

is not only causing nuisance to the plaintiffs, but 

also to the other members of the society (Defendant 

No.3).     Similar   complaints   have   been   made   by   the 

visitors.   Mr.   Dilip   Jobabputra   residing   in   Flat 

No.E­11   which   is   also   below   the   flat   of   the 

defendants made similar complaints to the society in 

respect of nuisance caused by the act of bird feeding 

done by the defendants.   According to Adv.Mr.Kalpesh 

Joshi,   the   grains   and   their   pieces   offered   to   the 

birds started falling on the channels of the sliding 

window   of   the   plaintiff's   bedroom   balcony   which   is 

exactly below the balcony of defendant No.1.  Besides 

this,   defendants   also   feed   farsan   pieces   and   left 

NM2995/11 in 2713/11 12 Dt : 27.09.2013

over   to   the   crows   from   their   kitchen.     The   crows 

throw   some   eatables   and   left   over   in   the   sliding 

windows   of   the   dinning   room   of   the   plaintiffs. 

Therefore,   the   plaintiffs   are   forced   to   clean   panel 

of   their   sliding   windows   several   times   in   a   day   to 

remove   the   filth   created   by   the   birds.     Thus, 

according   to   Ld.Adv.Mr.   Kalpesh   Joshi,   though   the 

plaintiffs   are   feeding   the   birds,   but   then   that 

squarely   cause   nuisance   to   the   plaintiffs   and 

virtually to the members of the society.  

9. The   Ld.Adv.Ms.   Vaishali   Ugale   appearing   for 

the   defendants   submits   that   the   defendants   residing 

in   their   flat   bearing   No.E­14   since   1972   and   since 

they become the members of the society (defendant No.

3).     According   to   her,   feeding   the   bird   is   a  moral 

act.   The defendants installed the metal tray out of 

their window balcony.  In fact, no nuisance is being 

caused   to   the   plaintiffs   and/or   members   of   the 

defendant   No.3   as   alleged.     According   to   Ld.Adv.Ms. 

NM2995/11 in 2713/11 13 Dt : 27.09.2013

Ugale, the suit is filed out of personal enmity and 

as   a   result   of   that   the   plaintiffs   started   making 

false complaints since 2009.  According to Ld.Adv.Ms. 

Ugale,   though   the   plaintiffs   alleged   causing   fungus 

infection and skin disease due to feeding of birds, 

spilling   of   water   and   falling   of   food   grains,   but 

there   is   nothing   on   record.     According   to   her, 

Article   51A   of   the   Constitution   of   India   casts 

fundamental duties on every citizens of India whereas 

Article   19   thereof   provides   for   right   to   freedom. 

Thus, no case has been made out by the plaintiffs to 

grant interlocutory injunction.

10. In   support   of   their   claim,   to   prove   the 

plaintiffs' case, the plaintiffs filed alongwith list 

page 15.   The copies of photographs Exhibits “A­1”, 

“A­2” and “A­3”.   Exhibit “B” (Page 19) is a letter 

wrote   by   the   plaintiffs   to   the   defendants   on 

12.12.2009.     Exhibit   “C”   is   a   letter   wrote   by   the 

society to the defendant No.2. Exhibit “D” is again a 
NM2995/11 in 2713/11 14 Dt : 27.09.2013

letter to the Secretary of the society by the office 

staff.  Exhibit “E” is a letter of the defendants to 

the society (defendant No.3). Exhibit “F” is a letter 

by   the   society   to   the   defendants   dated   02.01.2010. 

Exhibit   “G”   is   a   letter   by   the   society   to   the 

defendants dated 08.01.2010.  Exhibit “H” is a letter 

by   the   plaintiff   to   the   Commissioner   of   Police, 

Exhibit   “I”   is   again   a   complaint   made   by   the 

plaintiff   to   the   Sr.Inspector   of   Worli   Police 

Station. Exhibit “J” is a letter by the defendants to 

the society.   Exhibit “K” is a legal notice sent by 

the Advocate for the plaintiffs to the defendants. 

11. As   against   this,   the   defendants   alongwith 

their   written   statement   filed   on   record   with   list 

(Page 16). The photographs showing situation of their 

flat   and   plaintiffs'   flat   being   Exhibit   “1”   colly. 

Exhibit   “2”   colly.   are   again   the   photographs. 

Exhibit “3” is a letter dated 29.12.2009 sent by the 

defendants to the society (defendant No.3).   Exhibit 
NM2995/11 in 2713/11 15 Dt : 27.09.2013

“4”   colly.   are   the   photographs.     Exhibit   “5”   is   a 

notice by the society regarding special general body 

meeting to be held on 10.04.2010.   Exhibit “6” is a 

reply   letter   of   the   defednats   to   the   Advocate   Mr. 

Yogesh   Gaikwad.     Letter   dated   15.02.2010   is   a 

complaint by the defendants as against the plaintiffs 

to   the   secretary   of   defendant   No.3­Society.   Letter 

dated   11.02.2010   wrote   by   the   defendants   to   the 

secretary of the defendant No.3­Society.  

12. Thus, the annexures of documents sought to be 

relied by both the plaintiffs and defendants will be 

sufficient   to   decide   the   controversy   at   the 

interlocutory stage.  There is no dispute to the fact 

that the plaintiffs are occupants of flat No.E/10 and 

defendants are the occupants of flat No.E/14 situated 

above the flat of the plaintiffs.   Article “A” is a 

copy of the photographs which shows the situation of 

the   metal   tray   installed   outside   the   window   of   the 

balcony   of   defendants   for   the   birds   like   pigeons 

NM2995/11 in 2713/11 16 Dt : 27.09.2013

feeding   the   water.   The   second   photograph   would   show 

the   birds   are   sitting   in   the   balconies   of   the 

different flats.   Exhibit A­2 shows the filth thrown 

out   by   the   birds   lying   on   the   balconies   of   the 

different   flats.     The   plaintiffs   have   brought   this 

fact to the notice of the defendants by letter dated 

12.12.2009 (Exhibit “B”) and to the society, whereby 

the society by their letter dated 24.12.2009 (Exhibit 

“C”)   brought   this   fact   to   the   notice   of   the 

defendants that nuisance caused to the plaintiffs and 

other members of the defendant No.3.   Not only that, 

Exhibit “D” is a complaint made by the security staff 

of the society to the defendant No.3 informing about 

nuisance caused due to the pigeon filth, food grains 

and   water   spray   falling   from   above.     It   is   to   be 

noted that in a letter wrote by the defendant No.2 on 

29.12.2009   (Exhibit   “E”)   to   the   Joint   Secretary   of 

the   E­Block   of   the   defendant   No.3,   she   admits 

unequivocally   and   categorically   that   at   times   water 

spills or the container falls down and this happens 
NM2995/11 in 2713/11 17 Dt : 27.09.2013

when the bowls are empty. Utmost care will be taken 

by   them   that   this   does   not   happen   as   they   too   have 

lost   many   steel   bowls.     She   also   admits   that,   the 

birds come in a pack and because of the flapping of 

their wings a part of the feed falls out of the tray 

and some water is also spilled over.   But according 

to   her,   such   issue   should   not   be   made   of   such   a 

trivial but a compassionate deed.   The defendant No.

3­Society   also   wrote   a   letter   dated   02.01.2010 

(Exhibit   “F”)   to   the   defendants   informing   them   that 

they   also   witnessed   reduction   in   falling   of   the 

grains   on   the   ground   floor   and   the   birds   are   a 

nuisance for the society and requested her to avoid 

this   in   future,   so   as   to   avoid   future   problems 

thereby   annexing   cutting   of   the   decision   of   the 

Madras   High   Court   (page   25).     Beside   this,   the 

plaintiffs   made   complaints   respectively   to   the 

Commissioner of Police (Exhibit “H”) and to the Sr. 

Police Inspector, Worli Police Station (Exhibit “I”). 

All   the   documents   and   photographs   referred   to 

NM2995/11 in 2713/11 18 Dt : 27.09.2013

herein­above   and   the   facts   that   several   complaints 

have been made by the plaintiffs and security staff 

of the society to the secretary of the society or to 

the   Police   and   even   request   in   writing   to   the 

defendants pointing out that the feeding of the birds 

are   causing   nuisance   as   well   as   serious   hygienic 

problems   and   insects   falling   inside   the   bedroom   of 

the plaintiffs. The society has also taken cognizance 

and   informed   to   the   defendants   that   the   act   of 

feeding   the   birds   by   them   though   on   the   defendants 

part   is   a   moral   duty   and/or   part   of   their     hobbies 

and   their   compassionate   towards   the   birds,   but   then 

they creates hindrance in the day­to­day life of the 

society's   members   and   creating   hygienic   problems   by 

the filth dropping by the birds.  

13. The   defendants   as   I   have   already   observed 

categorically   admitted   in   her   letter   dated 

29.12.2009,   the   allegations   made   by   the   plaintiffs 

regarding   spilling   of   water   and   falling   down   the 

NM2995/11 in 2713/11 19 Dt : 27.09.2013

bowls   as   well   as   falling   of   the   food   grains   and 

insects   on   the   body   of   the   pigeons   etc.     Thus,   the 

cumulative   effect   of   the   set   of   facts   would   put   on 

record by the plaintiffs and defendants together with 

the   photographs,   the   letters   of   correspondence   to 

each   other   and   to   the   Secretary   of   the   society,   to 

the   police,   it   is   crystal   clear   that   there   is   a 

nuisance   of   feeding   birds   to   the   member   of   the 

society   and/or   Secretary   of   the   society   being   the 

member of the managing committee thereof and hygiene 

problems   to   the   wife   of   plaintiff.     In   such   a 

situation,   according   to   me,   even   if   at   all   the 

defendants like to perform their duties as an animal 

welfare   activist   and   Hon.   Member   of   the   AIAWA,   but 

then it would be better in her interest to seek some 

other   place   for   feeding   the   birds,   to   drink   them 

water which in no case would cause nuisance either to 

the   neighbours   or   the   staff/occupants   of   E­Block   of 

the   defendant   No.3­society   and/or   in   the   open   court 

yard of the society building.  The photographs sought 
NM2995/11 in 2713/11 20 Dt : 27.09.2013

to   be   relied   by   the   defendants   would   show   that   the 

group of pigeons drinking water and eating grains on 

the   ground   and   spilling   of   the   water   and   filth   in 

balcony.  Thus, according to me, it is not only cause 

nuisance, but also create the hygienic problems like 

respiratory   disease   like   Asthama   to   the   person 

residing nearby.

14. I   would   like   to   make   reference   to   the 

photographs   produced   by   the   defendants   on   page   18 

which would show the arrangement of metal tray made 

in   such   a   way   which   is   exactly   above   the   window 

balcony   of   the   plaintiffs.     The   birds   are   eating 

grains   in   grouping,   seen   flying   here   and   there   and 

thus,   they   might   have   causing   hygienic   problems   by 

spilling the water, feeding grains, filth and insects 

come out of their feathers.  

15. With   these   observations,   I   hold   that 

Ld.Adv.Mr. Kalpesh Joshi has rightly pointed out the 
NM2995/11 in 2713/11 21 Dt : 27.09.2013

situation   and   the   nuisance   that   caused   by   the 

defendants   due   to   feeding   of   the   birds.     Not   only 

that   the   documents   on   record   would   show   that   the 

plaintiff   has   by   writing   letter   to   the   Hon.   Joint 

Secretary of the society has brought this fact to the 

notice and made earnest appeal that nuisance which is 

being   caused   should   be   removed   to   maintain   good 

health of the members of the society.

16. I would also like to mention further that on 

the   complaint   made   by   the   plaintiffs,   the   defendant 

No.3­society convened special general body meeting on 

10.04.2010   at   7.30   p.m.     Accordingly,   a   notice   was 

issued   to   the   members   of   the   Venus   Co­operative 

Housing   Society   Ltd.     The   defendant   No.3   by   the 

Secretary Mr.P.L. Shetty, Item No.5 on the agenda of 

the subject notice is issued to discuss the problem 

arising   out   of   the   feeding   of   the   birds   by   the 

members from their window's/balconies and to pass an 

appropriate resolution depending upon consensus.
NM2995/11 in 2713/11 22 Dt : 27.09.2013

17. If   this   factual   matrix   is   taken   into 

consideration   by   no   stretch   of   imagination,   the 

submission   made   by   the   Ld.Adv.Ms.   Vaishali   Ugale 

cannot   be   accepted   that   the   dispute   is   outcome   of 

personal   enmity   between   the   plaintiffs   and 

defendants.     So   far   as   the   submissions   of   the 

Ld.Adv.Ms.Ugale   in   the   light   of   Article   51A   of   the 

Constitution of India and Article 19 thereof, I have 

already observed in my earlier discussion that if the 

defendant   No.2   is   an   animal   welfare   activist   and 

wants to perform her duties as a social worker, she 

would find such a suitable place nearby the society's 

building, where she can put the tray, feed the grains 

to the birds to avoid causing nuisance to the members 

of the society and for a public at large residing in 

the vicinity.  

18. With   these   observations   I   hold   that   the 

plaintiffs   have   been   able   to   establish   prima   facie 

NM2995/11 in 2713/11 23 Dt : 27.09.2013

that the act of the defendants feeding the birds by 

installation   of   metal   tray   with   iron   strips   outside 

the window balcony of their flat, caused nuisance to 

the   plaintiffs   and   virtually   to   the   members   of   the 

society.     In   other   words,   I   would   say   that   the 

plaintiffs unnecessarily for no fault of them, due to 

the spilling of water, feeding the grains and leaving 

the   excreta   by   the   pigeons   from   the   window   balcony 

respectively   causes   nuisance.     In   such   a   situation, 

if the defendants are not prevented from doing such 

an act, the nuisance would continue to cause to the 

plaintiffs   and   to   the   other   members   of   the   society 

(defendant No.3) and virtually to the public at large 

and their hygiene may come into danger.  This act of 

the   defendants   is   therefore,   required   to   be 

restrained by grant of interlocutory injunction. The 

relief   of   interlocutory   injunction   therefore, 

required to be granted by laying down the equitable 

reliefs.     The   relief   of   interlocutory   injunction 

therefore,   in   the   given   set   of   facts   and 

NM2995/11 in 2713/11 24 Dt : 27.09.2013

circumstances is justified and has to be granted as 

prayed for and balance of convenience also tilts in 

favour of the plaintiffs.  I answer point No.1 in the 

affirmative   and   point   No.2   in   favour   of   the 

plaintiffs.

As to point No.3 :­

19. Now   so   far   as   irreparable   loss   and 

comparative   hardship   is   concerned,   I   have   already 

observed   in   my   earlier   discussion   that   the   act   of 

feeding the birds by the defendants in the metal tray 

installed by them over the balcony of the plaintiffs, 

is   a   nuisance   and   virtually   creates   hygienic 

problems.     Thus,   it   can   safely   be   said   that 

comparative   hardship   would   be   caused   to   the 

plaintiffs   rather   than   to   the   defendants. 

Accordingly,   I   answer   point   No.3   to   the   plaintiffs. 

Lastly,   I   hold   that   notice   of   motion   would   succeed 

and   deserves   to   be   allowed.     Resultantly,   the 

following order :­
NM2995/11 in 2713/11 25 Dt : 27.09.2013

ORDER
1.Notice of Motion No.2995 of 2011 is 
hereby allowed and made absolute in 
terms of prayer clauses (a).
2.Costs in main cause.

DT. 27.09.2013   (M.T.GAIKWAD)

    Judge,
City Civil Court,
    Gr.Bombay.

Dictated on  : 27.09.2013
Oral order transcribed on : 30.09.2013
Oral order signed on :
Copy sent to C.C. :