Moot Memorial

DSNLU - 6th NOVICE MOOT COURT COMPETITION,2018
Roll Number: 18LLB096
IN THE HON’BLE PRINCIPAL DISTRICT JUDGE COURT OF JUNGPURA

ORIGINAL SUIT (O.S. NO. __ / 2018)
ON SUBMISSION TO THE HON’BLE PRINCIPAL DISTRICT JUDGE COURT OF VISAKHAPATNAM

UNDER SECTION 91(2) OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE
IN THE MATTER OF
JUNGPURA TOWNSHIP RESIDENTS’ WELFARE ASSOCIATION…………………………….PLAINTIFF
VS.
JIDH
KUMAR…………………………………………………………………….…………DEFENDANT
WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS FILED ON BEHALF OF DEFENANT
Counsels Appearing on Behalf of Defendant/-
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF DEFENDANT Page |

I
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ABBREVIATIONS
............................................................................................................................III
INDEX OF
AUTHORITIES................................................................................................................IV
STATEMENT OF
JURISDICTION...................................................................................................VIII
STATEMENT OF
FACTS..................................................................................................................IX
STATEMENT OF ISSUES
.................................................................................................................XI
SUMMARY OF
PLEADINGS............................................................................................................XII
ARGUMENTS
ADVANCED...........................................................................................................1-8
1. WHETHER THE SUIT FILED BY PLAINTIFF IS MAINTAINABLE?
2. WHETHER THE ACTIONS OF THE JIDH KUMAR AMOUNT TO NUISANCE?
3. WHETHER THE RIGHTS OF PLAINTIFF INFRINGED?
PRAYER..................................................................................................................................9

2
LIST OF ABBREVATIONS
ABBREVIATIONS EXPANSION
§ Section
§§ Sections
¶ Paragraph
AIR All India Reporter
HC High Court
Hon‟ble Honourable
SCR Supreme Court Reporter
SCC Supreme Court Cases

3
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES
A.CASES
1.Pt.Srinath Sharma vs Municipal Corporation Of Delhi on 15 May, 2009

2.Harkishan Vs. M/s.Jain Textile Traders 1994(1) P.L.R. (Delhi) 30
3.St. Mary's Orthodox Church and another v Thankamani Rajan and others(Kerala)7 Oct, 2015
4.Jai Ram Sharma and others v Rajender Pal and others(Himachal Pradesh)8 Aug, 2018
5.D.L. Walton v. Cochin Stock Exchange Ltd., AIR 1995 Ker 106
6.Animal Welfare Board of India Vs. A. Nagaraja & ors., (2014) 7 SCC 547 2014 Indlaw
SC 412
B.STATUTES REFERRED
1. Indian Penal Code

2. Constitution of India
3. Civil Procedure Code
4. Prevention of Cruelty towards animals Act
6. The General Clauses act 1897
GUIDE LINES & RULES
1.Animal Welfare Board of India, Guidelines-With respect to pet & street dogs, and care Givers
and for Residents’ Welfare Association and Apartment Owners Association, Published on 26th Feb,
2015.
2.Animal Birth Control (Dog) Amendment Rules, 2010.
3.Animal Birth Control (Dog), Rules 2001.
4.Animal welfare act 2007 (UK)
5.Animals welfare act 2010 (Norway)
BOOKS REFERRED

4
1. D. N. Mathur, Code of Civil Procedure, (Third Edition, 2015).

2. Das J.K, Codes of Civil Procedure, (E.d .2013)
3. Durga Das Basu, Introduction to the Constitution of India,(Ed. 1960.)
4. Justice C.K.Takwani, Civil Procedure (CPC) with Limitation Act, 1963, (7th
Edition,2016).
5. K.D. Gaur, A Textbook on the Indian Penal Code, (4th Edition, 2012).
6. M P Jain, Indian Constitutional Law, (8th Edition, 2018).
7. Madhav Khosla, The Indian Constitution: Oxford India Short Introductions,(2012).
8. Mulla, Code of Civil Procedure, (9th Edition, 2017).
9. Ratanlal & Dhirajlal’s, The Indian Penal Code, (35th Edition, 2017).
ONLINE RESOURCES
1. HeinOnline, https://home.heinonline.org/ (last seen on September 26, 2018).
2. Lexis India, https://www.lexisnexis.com/in/legal/ (last seen on September 26, 2018).
3. Manupatra, http://www.manupatrafast.com (last seen on September 26, 2018).
4. SCC Online, http://www.scconline.com/ (last seen on September 26, 2018).
5. Westlaw India, http://www.westlawindia.com/ (last seen on September 26, 2018).

5
STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION
The Defendant humbly submits before the Hon’ble Principal District Judge Court of
Jungpura, the memorandum for the Defendant filled by the Defendant in a suit filed by the
plaintiff under § 91of Code of Civil Procedure. However, the Defendant seeks permission of
this Hon’ble Court to contend the maintainability of this Suit.
The present memorandum sets forth the facts, contentions and arguments in the present
case.

6
STATEMENT OF FACTS
I.
JIDH KUMAR
Jidh Kumar lives in a two bedroom flat in the township of Jungpura Castle. He is very
famous for his books on pet grooming and activities for pets. He was a software engineer,
before turning into a fulltime author. In 2015, he bought the flat with the help of the royalties
he earned from his books. He is of the view that his sole purpose of living is to nurse the
disabled animals. His journey to a famous animal lover started in 2013, by creating the ‘Feed
Bucket Challenge’, wherein he challenged his friends to feed 5 stray dogs by sharing a full
bucket of food. The challenge was an instant hit and it was a trendsetter. After a year, he
challenged his friends to adopt stray dogs. He adopted 3 stray dogs. The challenge was
named as ‘Food and Blanket Challenge’. Though this was not as successful as the earlier
challenge, there are few posts on the social media on advantages and dangers in adopting a
stray dog. He moved into Jungpura Castle in 2015 with his 3 pet dogs. The large park in the
centre of the township is the main reason for him to buy a flat there, as his dogs get a lot of
space to run, explore and enjoy the clean environment. He was very happy to move into the
township from his old accommodation. In Jungpura Castle, he can see a lot of people who
own pets. He started a YouTube channel by the name ‘Dog’s Jidh’, where he posts videos on
activities, games and lessons on pet grooming. By December 2016, he had adopted 16 dogs,
most of which are disabled, all living with him in his flat. His daily routine starts with waking
up and taking all his dogs out for a walk. All the dogs used to answer nature’s calls during
that walk in the park. He had a very simple lifestyle in the township with his dogs.
II.
JUNGAPUR TOWNSHIP
It is the place where jidh Kumar was living since 2015. The township associations didn’t
have any complaints on jidh Kumar for two years but in July 2017, on receipt of a few
complaints from the neighbours of Jidh Kumar, the Residents’ Welfare Association of
Jungpura Township had formally asked Jidh Kumar to reduce the number of dogs by offering
them for adoption. He declined and said that he can manage all his dogs and there was not
even a single incident of his dogs going out of control. In the meanwhile, a new block of
apartments was constructed in the Township, which reduced the size of the park to one-
quarter of the original size. In January 2018, elections were held for the Residents’ Welfare

7
Association of Jungpura Township. The newly elected members resolved that the residents
should be allowed to enjoy the premises to the fullest possible extent. In March 2018, basing
on complaints relating to the noise that the dogs make and disturbance caused the association
sent a notice to jidh Kumar. After a month of the notice the association filed a suit against
Jidh Kumar underground of nuisance.

8
STATEMENT OF ISSUES
1. WHETHER THE SUIT FILED BY PLAINTIFF IS MAINTAINABLE?
2. WHETHER THE ACTIONS OF THE JIDH KUMAR AMOUNT TO NUISANCE?
3. WHETHER THE RIGHTS OF PLAINTIFF INFRINGED?

9
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS
1.According to § 91 {1} of CPC . it tells us a suit on public nuisance can be filed only by the
following
1} advocate general can file it
2} one or more has to take leave from court
In other cases special damages are required to file a case .

But here suit was filed on defendant without following any of above mentioned .
Therefore suit is liable to be dismissed due to lack of special damage, which is an essential
element under § 91 of CPC.
In this suit no such conditions are fulfilled by the plaintiff to make the defendant liable and
moreover this is a suit which ignored the procedure in code of civil procedure.
2. Guidelines for pet owners issued by Animal Welfare board of India powers the pet owners
with many rights and under these the barking or dogs, dogs urine and excreta in the parks won’t
be considered as nuisance for which the defendant can’t be made liable.
3.The Association cannot ban the dogs in the township. Even by amending bye-laws or
regulations or otherwise, such a “ban’ cannot be put into place since it is illegal, does not
have the sanctions of law . If the residents or occupiers that have pets are not violating any
municipal or other laws, it is not permissible for residents welfare associations and apartment
owners associations to object to their having pet as companions.
Therefore the association didn’t have any legal right to ban the dogs from the township.

10
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED
Whether the suit filed by is maintainable?
It is humbly contended before the Hon”ble Court that the instant suit filed by the Welfare
Association of jungapur township [Hereinafter referred to as “the Plaintiff”] is not
maintainable. It is submitted that redressal mechanism has been provided under the civil
procedure code is not fulfilled. The Plaintiff has not followed the statutory redressal mechanism
and has directly challenged the defendant with this suit before the Hon”ble Court. The Plaintiff
has wrongly invoked the jurisdiction of the Court under § 91 of CPC [Hereinafter referred as
“Civil Procedure Code”]
The defendant relies upon the sub-clauses provided in the § 91 of CPC Which states as follows
“(1) In the case of a public nuisance or other wrongful act affecting, or likely to affect,
the public, a suit for a declaration and injunction or for such other relief as may be
appropriate in the circumstances of the case, may be instituted,
(a)by the Advocate General, or
(b)with the leave of the Court, by two or more persons, even though no special
damage has been caused to such persons by reason of such public nuisance
or other wrongful act.
(2) Nothing in this § shall be deemed to limit or otherwise affect any right of
Suit which may exist independently of its provisions.1”
Applications moved by the appellants under § 91 of CPC are devoid of any merit.2 Hereby the
defendant argues that the procedural elements took by the plaintiff in filing the suit are wrong.
Such a suit cannot make a defendant liable for the actions. if a particular right to sue arises in
favour of a particular person, even if there is public nuisance such right to sue in private
capacity is not affected by provisions of § 91(1) of CPC.3 But the plaintiff here failed to show
the particular damage caused by which the particular right of the plaintiff can be raised. The
1
CPC Section 91
2
Pt.Srinath Sharma vs Municipal Corporation Of Delhi, (2009) SCC 970 (India)
3
Harkishan Vs. M/s.Jain Textile Traders 1994(1) P.L.R. (Delhi) 30

11
plaintiff here is not an advocate general and he didn’t get the leave of the court and he didn’t
even suffered with special damage. The suit filed by the plaintiff is not maintainable by law.
The plaintiffs were legally obliged to secure leave of the court as contemplated in that provision
before instituting the suit to the extent it involves public nuisance or other wrongful act
affecting or likely to affect the public.4 But the plaintiff is completely failed in taking the
required leave before the court. So The suit can be dismissed by the Hon”ble Court under the
ground of improper procedural aspects.
Rather rendered the suit to be maintainable, only, upon an apt leave being accorded by the civil
court, and, also enjoined, its, being instituted, by two or more persons. 5 In this suit no such
conditions are fulfilled by the plaintiff to make the defendant liable and moreover this is a suit
which ignored the procedure in code of civil procedure.
The suit was one for vindication of a right in the public and was likely to affect the public, the
suit could not be maintained without sanction under § 91 of the Code of Civil Procedure.6
Relying upon the assertions and adjudications of the Hon”ble Court in the aforementioned
cases, it is contended that it is settled that the jurisdiction of the Court under § 91 of the Civil
Procedure Code cannot be invoked when the procedural aspect is incomplete.
Therefore, it is humbly submitted before the Hon’ble Court that the suit is not
maintainable as redressal mechanism is not available to the Plaintiff under § 91 of
CPC. Moreover, there has been no proper proceedings made by the plaintiff
4
St. Mary's Orthodox Church and another v Thankamani Rajan and others(Kerala)7 Oct, 2015
5
Jai Ram Sharma and others v Rajender Pal and others(Himachal Pradesh)8 Aug, 2018
6
D.L. Walton v. Cochin Stock Exchange Ltd., AIR 1995 Ker 106

12
WHETHER THE ACTIONS OF THE JIDH KUMAR AMOUNT TO NUISANCE?
Public Nuisance
The term public nuisance covers a wide variety of minor crimes that threaten the health, morals,
safety, comfort, convenience, or welfare of a community. Violators may be punished by a
criminal sentence, a fine, or both. A defendant may also be required to remove a nuisance or
to pay the costs of removal. For example, a manufacturer who has polluted a stream might be
fined and might also be ordered to pay the cost of clean up. Public nuisances may interfere with
public health, such as in the keeping of diseased animals or a malarial pond. Public safety
nuisances include shooting fireworks in the streets, storing explosives, practicing medicine
without a license, or harbouring a vicious dog. Houses of prostitution, illegal liquor
establishments, Gaming houses, and unlicensed prize fights are examples of nuisances that
interfere with public morals. Obstructing a highway or creating a condition to make travel
unsafe or highly disagreeable are examples of nuisances threatening the public convenience. A
public nuisance interferes with the public as a class, not merely one person or a group of
citizens. No civil remedy exists for a private citizen harmed by a public nuisance, even if his
or her harm was greater than the harm suffered by others; a criminal prosecution is the exclusive
remedy. However, if the individual suffers harm that is different from that suffered by the
general public, the individual may maintain a TORT ACTION for damages. For example, if
dynamiting has thrown a large boulder onto a public highway, those who use the highway
cannot maintain a nuisance action for the inconvenience. However, a motorist who is injured
from colliding with the boulder may bring a tort action for personal injuries.
Private Nuisance
A private nuisance is an interference with a person's enjoyment and use of his land. The law
recognizes that landowners, or those in rightful possession of land, have the right to the
unimpaired condition of the property and to reasonable comfort and convenience in its
occupation. Some nuisances can be both public and private in certain circumstances where the
public nuisance substantially interferes with the use of an individual's adjoining land.
In CPC Public nuisance shall mean a public nuisance as defined in the Indian Penal Code.7 §
268 of Indian Penal Code says that, a person is guilty of a public nuisance who does any act or
7
The General Clauses Act , 1897, s. 3(48).

13
is guilty of an illegal omission which causes any common injury, danger or annoyance to the
public or to the people in general who dwell or occupy property in the vicinity, or which must
necessarily cause injury, obstruction, danger or annoyance to persons who may have occasion
to use any public right.8
Guidelines for pet owners issued by Animal Welfare board of India9 powers the pet owners
with many rights which the respondent can also enrich. It defines the pets as the family
members of the owners and therefore deserves same attention throughout its life as human
being. It also states that no amount of pressure should lead to abandonment of pet animals. It
is also clearly mentioned that barking is a natural form of expression of the dogs and it should
be tolerated in the society. But the Plaintiff in this case is creating an unnecessary issue by
raising this case.
Animal Welfare board has also constituted some rules regarding the townships and stated that
nobody in apartments or townships can create an obligation or ban regarding the keeping of
pets even after the majority of the township accepted the ban10. The general body of association
can’t make by-laws which are in violation with law of the land. In fact, in trying to ‘ban’ pets,
or limit their numbers , residents’ welfare associations & apartment owners association
interfere with a fundamental freedom guaranteed to the citizens of India, i.e. the freedom to
choose the life they wish to live, which includes facets such as living with or without
companion animals. According to this seeking to ban pets from gardens or parks, is short-
sighted. While coming to the matter of excreta we have to keep in mind that in the absence of
central or state laws requiring cleaning of pet excreta by pet owners, residents welfare
association & apartment owners associations cannot impose any rule, regulation or bye-law,
with respect to the same, or impose special charges or fines on pet owners.
The apartment authorities attracted the defendant with the park and without the proper consent
of the residents minimised the park to one-fourth by constructing a building in the park. The
rights of the children to play in the park are violated by these constructions. The animal excreta
found in the park after a month after the complaint may be belongs to any cattle, stray dogs and
any other animal. They didn’t mention that it was of dog and moreover there are other dog
owners in the township other than the defendant.
8
Indian Penal Code, 1860, s.268.
9
Guidelines With Respect To Pet And Street Dogs And Their Care Givers And For Residents Welfare
Associations And Apartment Owners Associations, Animal welfare Board Of India (AWBI), 2015.
10

14
Here defendant is not liable for stinky in garden by excretion of animals. 11 moreover it is not
mentioned that only dogs of defendant are only reason for this because there are other animals
in apartment . But only defendant was made liable .
All the allegations made by the plaintiff are baseless arguments. Moreover there is no
evidence with the plaintiff that the excretion was by the pets of the defendant. So I
humbly submit to the hon”ble court that the suit which was filed with baseless
arguments should be dismissed.
11

15
WHETHER THE RIGHTS OF PLAINTIFF INFRINGED?
The defendant here left his job to feed these dogs. Article 21 of the Indian constitution states
the right to life.12 the word "life" includes all forms of life including animal life which are
necessary for human life Every species has a right to life and security, subject to the law of the
land, which includes depriving its life, out of human necessity.13 Article 21 of the Constitution,
while safeguarding the rights of humans, protects life and the word "life" has been given an
expanded definition and any disturbance from the basic environment which includes all forms
of life, including animal life, which are necessary for human life, fall within the meaning of
Article 21 of the Constitution.
Animals Welfare Act of 2006 14also confers considerable protection to the animals from pain
and suffering. The Austrian Federal Animal Protection Act also recognises man’s
responsibilities towards his fellow creatures and the subject “Federal Act” aims at the
protection of life and well-being of the animals.) states “animals have an intrinsic value which
is irrespective of the usable value they may have for man. Animals shall be treated well and be
protected from the danger of unnecessary stress and strain.15
Article 51A of the Indian Constitution speaks about the fundamental duties. It shall be the duty
of every citizen of India to abide by the Constitution and respect its ideals and institutions, the
National Flag and the National Anthem.16 One of those ideas is to protect and improve the
natural environment including forests, lakes, rivers and wild life, and to have compassion for
living creatures. The defendant here had showed his compassion towards the disabled dogs
which is a fundamental duty and the pet owners has been encouraged for that. All the citizens
are under the duty to respect and upheld the dog lovers, but the plaintiff here filed this suit
against the defendant for his compassion towards dogs. The plaintiff infringed the rights of the
defendant by doing so.
The universe along with its creatures belongs to the land. No creature is superior to any other.
Human beings should not be above nature. Let no one species encroach over the rights and
12
Constitution of India
13
Animal Welfare Board of India Vs. A. Nagaraja & ors., (2014) 7 SCC 547 2014 Indlaw SC 412
14
Animal welfare act 2007 (UK)
15
Animals welfare act 2010 (Norway)
16

16
privileges of other species.17 All the creatures should be treated equal. By this animals should
also treated equally with human beings
Under article 51(g)18 which gives every citizen the right to decide how they choose to live
which included choice to live with or without companion animal, despite it being considered
as fundamental right most of the lovers are subjected to harassment due to their choice of
keeping pets and giving shelter to the stray dogs especially in the residential apartments. The
defendant who is following his duties and abiding the law of the land should be encouraged,
but he shouldn’t be made to stop his occupation of growing dogs. First of all, the plaintiff didn’t
have any legal right to demand the defendant to keep conditions in keeping dogs with him
which violates the guidelines given by animal welfare board in 2015.
Art.19 deals with the right to freedom and in this freedom comes the right to profession,
occupation, Trade and Business.19 therefore, every citizen has right to occupation and if
someone has taken caring of animals as his occupation, it is legal and has every right to carry
on with his occupation. The plaintiff by trying to obstruct the practice of growing dogs by the
defendant infringes the fundamental right of the defendant under art. 21 of the constitution
The Apartment owners or Association ignoring the laws and bye-laws of animal welfare society
of India, are making erroneous demands of eviction of the pet lovers. Demanding a pet lover
to give his dogs for adoption for these mere reasons infringes the legal right of the defendant.
Reducing area of the park by constructing buildings in the park is unlawful due to which the
children were unable to use the park properly and the defendant had no part in minimising the
park and for which the plaintiff is trying to make the defendant responsible. Not only the
defendant but some other flat owners are also having dogs but the association cannot make the
defendant liable by leaving all those people
The respondent had lot of emotional bonding with the dogs right from their adoption and
grooming them and has every right under the article 21 of the constitution of india to feed and
shelter the dogs. He is controlling his dogs properly and training them properly for their good
behaviour in the township and the defendant had every right under the constitution of the
country to protect his rights.
17
Animal Welfare Board of India v. A.Nagaraja and Others ([2014] 7 SCC 547) 2014 Indlaw SC 412
18
Fundamental Duties Constitution of India
19

17
The attitude shown by the plaintiff towards the dogs of defendant is punishable under the § 11
of the prevention of cruelty towards animals Act20. Moreover the plaintiff is trying to make the
defendant vacate from the township by making useless allegations on the defendant.
Therefore, it is humbly submitting before the court to dismiss this suit filed by the
residents welfare association as it violates the fundamental rights of the defendant
under article 19, articles
20
Prevention of Cruelty towards animals Act

18
FINAL SUBMISSION/PRAYER
It is, therefore, most humbly prayed before this Hon’ble District to kindly dismiss
this vexatious Suit filed by Plaintiff and may be pleased to adjudge and declare that:
1. This suit is not maintainable under the law.
2. Defendants actions do not amount to Nuisance
3. Dismiss the suit filed by the Association in the Interest of justice, with costs.
And/or pass such other order in light of justice, equity and good Conscience which this
Hon’ble court may feel fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.
And for this act of kindness, the Respondent duty bound shall forever pray.
All of which are most humbly prayed.

S/d-
Counsels for Defendant/-

19

Moot Memorial

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Moot Memorial

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

DSNLU - 6th NOVICE MOOT COURT COMPETITION,2018

Roll Number: 18LLB096

IN THE HON’BLE PRINCIPAL DISTRICT JUDGE COURT OF JUNGPURA

ON SUBMISSION TO THE HON’BLE PRINCIPAL DISTRICT JUDGE COURT OF VISAKHAPATNAM

JUNGPURA TOWNSHIP RESIDENTS’ WELFARE ASSOCIATION…………………………….PLAINTIFF

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS FILED ON BEHALF OF DEFENANT

Counsels Appearing on Behalf of Defendant/-

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF DEFENDANT Page |

1. WHETHER THE SUIT FILED BY PLAINTIFF IS MAINTAINABLE?

2. WHETHER THE ACTIONS OF THE JIDH KUMAR AMOUNT TO NUISANCE?

3. WHETHER THE RIGHTS OF PLAINTIFF INFRINGED?

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF DEFENDANT Page |

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF DEFENDANT Page |

1.Pt.Srinath Sharma vs Municipal Corporation Of Delhi on 15 May, 2009

1. Indian Penal Code

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF DEFENDANT Page |

1. D. N. Mathur, Code of Civil Procedure, (Third Edition, 2015).

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF DEFENDANT Page |

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF DEFENDANT Page |

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF DEFENDANT Page |

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF DEFENDANT Page |

1. WHETHER THE SUIT FILED BY PLAINTIFF IS MAINTAINABLE?

2. WHETHER THE ACTIONS OF THE JIDH KUMAR AMOUNT TO NUISANCE?

3. WHETHER THE RIGHTS OF PLAINTIFF INFRINGED?

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF DEFENDANT Page |

1} advocate general can file it

2} one or more has to take leave from court

In other cases special damages are required to file a case .

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF DEFENDANT Page |

Whether the suit filed by is maintainable?

or other wrongful act.

Suit which may exist independently of its provisions.1”

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF DEFENDANT Page |

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF DEFENDANT Page |

WHETHER THE ACTIONS OF THE JIDH KUMAR AMOUNT TO NUISANCE?

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF DEFENDANT Page |

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF DEFENDANT Page |

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF DEFENDANT Page |

WHETHER THE RIGHTS OF PLAINTIFF INFRINGED?

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF DEFENDANT Page |

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF DEFENDANT Page |

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF DEFENDANT Page |

1. This suit is not maintainable under the law.

2. Defendants actions do not amount to Nuisance

All of which are most humbly prayed.

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF DEFENDANT Page |

You might also like