JUDGMENT : The defendant who was unsuccessful in getting the plaint rejected on his application filed under Order 7 Rule 11 on the ground of non disclosure of cause of action is before us. The subject matter of the suit is proposed construction of a 240 meter tall tower having sixty floors to the west of Fountain Court where the respondent/plaintiff have residential complex, leaving a distance of only sixty seven feet in between the two properties. On the application filed by the defendant learned Judge made an elaborate discussion by referring to several citations referred to by both sides and ultimately opined that the plaint cannot be rejected on the ground of non disclosure of cause of action. 2. Aggrieved by the same the defendant/appellant is before us contending that none of the pleadings averred in the plaint would disclose such cause of action which amounts to actionable nuisance and, therefore, the learned Judge ought not to have dismissed the application. According to appellant though learned Judge observed that none of the annexures would be looked into for the purpose of appreciating the material at the stage of disposal of Order 7, r. 11 application, ultimately opining that the report annexed to the plaint would disclose the apprehension indicated by the plaintiff, therefore, the application has to be dismissed was wrong as the learned Judge cannot approbate and reprobate. They also contend that in the absence of violation of any of the building rules and procedure and when the appellant/defendant have in their hand a properly sanctioned plan to proceed with the construction, there was no justification for the plaintiff to approach the Court with the suit in question. They also placed reliance on a paragraph indicated at page 5 quoting Lord Halsbury in Colls Appellant; And Home And Colonial Stores, Limited Respondents. [1904] A.C. 179 [House of Lords.], which reads as under ;- "I think that no tribunal ought to find as a fact that the building is a nuisance, and, altogether apart from the inappropriateness of the remedy by injunction, I am of opinion that the plaintiffs have no cause of action against the defendant. [1904] A.C. 179 [House of Lords.], which reads as under ;- "I think that no tribunal ought to find as a fact that the building is a nuisance, and, altogether apart from the inappropriateness of the remedy by injunction, I am of opinion that the plaintiffs have no cause of action against the defendant. The test of the right is, I think, whether the obstruction complained of is a nuisance, and, as it appears to me, the value of the test makes the amount of right acquired depend upon the surroundings and circumstances of light coming from other sources, as well as the question of the proximity of the premises complained of. What may be called the uncertainty of the test may also be described as its elasticity. A dweller in towns cannot expect to have as pure air, as free from smoke, smell, and noise as if he lived in the country, and distant from other dwellings, and yet an excess of smoke, smell, and noise may give a cause of action, but in each of such cases it becomes a question of degree, and the question is in each case whether it amounts to a nuisance which will give a right of action." 3. According to learned Senior Counsel Mr. Sudipto Sarkar, mere allegation that the proposed construction would diminish the light and air enjoyed by the plaintiff hitherto will not give any cause of action and such complaint can never be brought under the purview of easementary right. With these submissions he challenged the impugned order and sought for allowing application filed under Order 7 Rule 11 of the CPC. 4. As against this learned Senior Counsel Mr. Chowdhury submits that if meaningful reading of averments in the plaint does not disclose any cause of action, then allowing the application filed under Order 7 Rule 11 for the deficit of Cause of Action can be entertained. He further contends on more than one occasion The Apex Court has held that a meaningful reading of the plaint has to be made in order to ascertain with what apprehension and complaint the plaintiff has approached the Court and, therefore there was no justification seeking rejection of the plaint at the threshold. He further contends on more than one occasion The Apex Court has held that a meaningful reading of the plaint has to be made in order to ascertain with what apprehension and complaint the plaintiff has approached the Court and, therefore there was no justification seeking rejection of the plaint at the threshold. He also contends that the contention of the appellant/defendant that there cannot be any complaint of violation of easementary right of air and light if only reduction of the light and air is the complaint is justified. According to learned Senior Counsel Mr. Chowdhury, the report of the expert, which was the basis, is yet to be tested during the trial and till such time the reasonable apprehension in the mind of the plaintiff which is disclosed in several paragraphs of the plaint would be sufficient to conclude that there is cause of action to entertain the suit. He also relies upon Black's Law Dictionary contending "Quia Timet" action can be entertained. 5. On going through the impugned order and also the averment in the plaint so also the application filed under Order 7 Rule 11 what we understand is there is sixty seven feet distance between the two buildings and the defendant is proposing to construct the sixty storied residential complex which is about 240 meters tall to the west of Fountain Court where the plaintiff's residential units are in existence. According to the plaintiff mere apprehension in their mind was not the basis to approach the Court but they consulted the world famous expert from England with regard to the issue in question who has categorically given a report that the proposed construction would definitely be coming in the way of enjoyment of light and air so far as the residents of the plaintiff's residential units. According to learned Counsel for appellant without the experts visiting Calcutta how they have furnished such report as it lacks physical verification of the site under dispute. The quotation from House of Lords referred to above clearly indicates under what circumstances the right complained of has to be looked into. According to learned Counsel for appellant without the experts visiting Calcutta how they have furnished such report as it lacks physical verification of the site under dispute. The quotation from House of Lords referred to above clearly indicates under what circumstances the right complained of has to be looked into. Above the said quoted paragraph at page 5 refers to another para wherein Their Lordships opined as under;- "I think that the whole subject has been confused by certain decisions which were dependent on the facts proved, and were incautiously reported as laying down principles of law, whey they were, in my view, only intended to be findings of fact in that particular case. At all events, I am prepared to hold that the test given by Lord Hardwicke is the true one, and I do not think a better example could be found than the present case to show to what extravagant results the other theory leads. The owner of a tenement on one side of a street forty feet wide seeks to restrain his opposite neighbour from erecting a room which, when erected, will not then be of the same height as the house belonging to the complaining neighbour, and the only plausible ground on which the complaint rests is that on the ground floor he has a room not built in the ordinary way of rooms in an ordinary dwelling-house, but built so that one long room goes through the whole width of the house to a back wall, a room which has no window at the back of the sides, and which was, therefore, at the back of it, too dark for some purposes without the use of artificial light even before the building on the other side of the street was erected." 6. It clearly indicates there was only one room to be erected by the opposite neighbour of the petitioner and the right enjoyed by the owner of the tenement was on one side of road forty feet wide having other source of light to his property. In the paragraph referred to by the learned Senior Counsel Mr. It clearly indicates there was only one room to be erected by the opposite neighbour of the petitioner and the right enjoyed by the owner of the tenement was on one side of road forty feet wide having other source of light to his property. In the paragraph referred to by the learned Senior Counsel Mr. Sarkar appearing on behalf of the appellant clearly indicates each case has to be looked into to ascertain whether there is cause of action or not as the said issue differs from case to case and, therefore, we are of the opinion ultimately the facts and circumstances of each case has to be looked into to ascertain the cause of action upon which the suit is brought. 7. On going through the contents of the plaint without even referring to the report of the expert which has to undergo credibility test during the course of evidence between the parties, one has to see whether a meaningful reading of the plaint would allow us to throw the plaint at threshold for want of cause of action. Several paragraphs are referred to in the impugned order. It is also pertinent to mention that number of paragraph indicating the case of the plaint would not determine the fact whether there is cause of action or not. Even in one paragraph, the plaintiff could express what is the basis upon which he comes to Court complaining the loss of air and light. Reading of paragraph 11 indicates that insufficient light and air for ordinary habitancy is the main cause of action for complaining the actionable nuisance. One should not look at how many times the actionable nuisance is complained of. Whether a case is made out which amounts to actionable nuisance has to be looked into. One has to see whether the reasonable and prudent thinking mind would get such apprehension as in the case before us with the facts and situation involved in the present lis. 8. On the western side of the proposed construction the plaintiff is having its habitancy where several residential units are in existence right from 1956. In other words the so-called easementary right, they are complaining of, being diminished by the proposed construction, is enjoyed by them as per the averments for more than twenty years. 8. On the western side of the proposed construction the plaintiff is having its habitancy where several residential units are in existence right from 1956. In other words the so-called easementary right, they are complaining of, being diminished by the proposed construction, is enjoyed by them as per the averments for more than twenty years. Whatever is pleaded in the plaint and the material relied upon is yet to be established in the course of trial in order to have their suit decreed. We are at the threshold of considering whether the plaint disclosed cause of action or not for presenting the suit. It is not mere apprehension with which the plaintiff has approached the Court but they had also obtained a report from an expert, which intensified their apprehension as claimed in the plaint. Therefore, without even looking at the annexure one has to ascertain whether the plaintiff has approached the court referring to a cause of action referable to an actionable nuisance or not. 9. According to the plaintiff as averred in paragraphs 11, 12, 13 and 14 they clearly indicate that they have reasonable apprehension entertained in their mind supported by the report of an expert that the right to enjoy air and light by them would be jeopardised by the proposed construction. Therefore, the learned Judge was justified in opining that the plaint cannot be rejected at this stage non-suiting the plaintiff for want of cause of action. Of course the plaintiff has to prove prima facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable loss which cannot be compensated in terms of money if he were to seek for interim injunction and ultimately he has to establish what he has pleaded in the plaint in order to get his suit decreed in his favour. It is well settled that whatever the cause of action pleaded by the plaintiff need not be elaborated with all the details of evidence that the plaintiff proposes to produce during the course of evidence. In other words, he need not establish at this stage how he would be entitled for a decree in his favour. He has to plead what he thinks is justifiable cause of action as that of a reasonable prudent thinking person. 10. With these observations we decline to interfere with the impugned order and accordingly the appeal is dismissed, so also the application. Appeal dismissed.