Short Note : 1. This second appeal is by the defendants against a decree for perpetual injunction to restrain the defendants from running their cotton carding machine ( :bZ /kquus okyh e'khu ). The plaintiffs' residential houses and the defendants' premises in which the said machine has been installed are on either side of a street in mohalla katra-Gajrathkhana in the city of Rewa. The plaintiffs claim that the running of defendants machine in their premises results in substantial discomfort to the plaintiffs and their families living in their houses across the street so as to amount to an actionable private nuisance. It is briefly on this ground that this main relief of perpetual injunction to restrain the running of the defendants' machine was claimed by the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs have succeeded in both the Courts below. Held: It has to be seen whether the cotton fibres escaping from the defendants' machine and carried with the wind into the outer verandah of the plaintiffs' house cause any substantial discomfort to the persons living in the plaintiffs' house in order to amount to an actionable nuisance. It is not the plaintiffs' case that the cotton fibres are noxious per se. Obviously it is the quantity, degree or intensity of their flow into the plaintiffs' premises which, if excessive, can be objectionable in case it causes substantial discomfort. There is no proof or finding that it is so excessive. It is also significant that no other resident of that locality has made a grievance against the existence of the defendants' machine in that locality. There is also no evidence of any deleterious effect of these air-borne cotton fibres upon any other resident of that locality except to the extent proved by P.W. Dr. Ramkumar Singh, the plaintiffs' family physician. What is proved by that doctor undoubtedly does not satisfy the test of an actionable nuisance based on the ground of 'injury to comfort'. The locality in question is not an exclusive residential locality and the standard of living therein has not been shown to be any thing above the ordinary living standard in an average business-cum-residential locality on the roadside of a city. The only adverse effect attempted to be proved is on the aforesaid three members of the plaintiffs' family. Of these the ailment of two has not been attributed with any degree of probability to the air-borne cotton fibres. The only adverse effect attempted to be proved is on the aforesaid three members of the plaintiffs' family. Of these the ailment of two has not been attributed with any degree of probability to the air-borne cotton fibres. Only in the case of the remaining person, i.e., wife of plaintiff No.2, the doctor has sad that these cotton fibres could aggravate her illness of cough and cold because they have the effect of increasing irritation in a sensitive throat or nose. In that case also the possible adverse consequence suggested is of aggravating an illness but not of causing illness. This is the maximum inconvenience shown by the plaintiffs to their living comfort. 2. On these facts there is no basis to hold that the test applicable for finding a case of actionable nuisance has been made out by the plaintiffs. The locality in which the plaintiffs have chosen to live and the standard of living comfort prevailing there do not justify any grievance being made against an inconvenience to this extent only. The air-borne cotton fibres enter only the outer verandah of plaintiffs' house and not any of the living room. Having chosen to live by the roadside where the inflow of dust is inevitable the plaintiffs cannot complain against such intrusion of air-borne particles alongwith the dust into their outer verandah. Salmond's Law of Torts, 16th Edn. AIR 1936 Mad. 905 , 1938 JLJ 110, AIR 1968 Punj. 399 and AIR 1973 Raj. 212 relied on. 1957 JLJ 936 referred to. Appeal allowed.