Judgment ( 1. ) DEFENDANT is the appellant. He has come up in Second Appeal under Section l00 of CPC against the judgment/decree dated 10-1-2003 passed by First Additional District Judge, Alirajpur, District Jhabua, in C. A. No. 7-A/ 2002 which in turn arise out of judgment/decree dated 20-9-2002 passed by Civil Judge, Class II, Alirajpur, in C. S. No. 94-A/2001. The question that arises for consideration in this appeal is whether appeal involves any substantial question of law within the meaning of Section 100 ibid. ( 2. ) HEARD Shri B. K. Joshi, learned Counsel for the appellant. ( 3. ) HAVING heard the learned Counsel for the appellant and having perused the record of the case, I find no substance in this appeal. In other words, the appeal does not involve any substantial question of law as such and hence the appeal must merit dismissal in liminep. ( 4. ) THE dispute is between the two neighbours having their houses adjacent to each other. Plaintiff is a teacher and is having his family consisting of school going children. The defendant is a businessman. It is the case of plaintiff that defendant has set up Aata Chakki small floor/grinding mill in his house which he runs throughout the day causing immense nuisance to plaintiff both from noise point of view as also air pollution. It is the case of plaintiff that despite the Municipality of the concern area directing the defendant not to install and run Chakki in his house by issuing written orders (Exs. P-3 and P-4), the defendant has installed the Chakki which is causing pollution hazard both noise as also Air in the locality and in particular to plaintiff, who is the next door neighbour. It is this action of the defendant which gave the plaintiff a cause of action to file a suit out of which this appeal arises for an injunction of removal of the said Chakki, The defence was that of denial by contending that Chakki does not cause any nuisance as alleged. The Trial Court dismissed the suit but the First Appellate Court decreed the suit directing defendant to remove the Chakki. It is against this judgment/decree the defendant has come up in second appeal. ( 5. ) I find no fault in the impugned judgment. It is not in dispute that defendant has installed a Chakki in his shop. The Trial Court dismissed the suit but the First Appellate Court decreed the suit directing defendant to remove the Chakki. It is against this judgment/decree the defendant has come up in second appeal. ( 5. ) I find no fault in the impugned judgment. It is not in dispute that defendant has installed a Chakki in his shop. It is also not in dispute that Corporation has directed by Annexures P-3 and P-4 to defendant not to install Chakki in the shop. It is also not in dispute that both plaintiff and defendants are next door neighbours having a common wall. ( 6. ) IT is a clear case of causing constant noise/environmental pollution to plaintiff by the defendant in running Aata Chakki in his shop unauthorisedly. When the Corporation (Civic Authorities) has restrained the defendant from setting up the Chakki, he should not have set up Chakki in his shop. One can not deny the fact and there is overwhelming evidence brought on record which found favour to learned First Appellate Judge for passing a mandatory injunction of removal of Chakki that installation and running the Chakki in small shop by the defendant causes immense irritating noise as also air pollution in the area and to inhabitants living therein. The plaintiffs being the next door resident of defendant are the first victim of such nuisance. Indeed, it is a clear case of nuisance to the plaintiff and his family members who are unable to live peacefully in their house and hence they had every right to file a suit and claim mandatory injunction for removal of disputed Chakki. ( 7. ) LEARNED Counsel for the appellant was unable to point out as to what was the legal defence that the defendant had possibly put except to state that use of Chakki does not create any noise or Air pollution. On facts it was not accepted by the First Appellate Court. It is a finding based on facts and binds the Second Appellate Court. ( 8. ) I thus do not find any merit in the appeal. It fails and is dismissed in limine. As a consequence the interim stay granted stands recalled.