ORDER 1. The appellants/defendants have filed this appeal under section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure being aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 5.12.2011 passed by District Judge, Guna in Civil Appeal No.29A of 2010 confirming the judgment and decree dated 3.9.2010 passed by the Court of I Civil Judge Class II, Guna in Civil Suit No.10A of 2010 whereby, the suit filed by the respondents/plaintiffs in representative capacity under section 91 of the Code of Civil Procedure against the appellants/defendants for restraining them from causing nuisance by playing music system DJ near the colony where the plaintiffs reside, was decreed. In this appeal, the appellants are referred to as “defendants” and the respondents as “plaintiff's'. 2. The facts in brief of the case are that the plaintiffs are residents of Mathkari Colony Guna and there exists a marriage Garden owned by the defendants namely Pawan Shree Mangalik Bhawan (which hereinafter would be referred to as “marriage garden”), where during marriage season, the DJ system is played till late in the night upto 1 AM, owing to which, public residing in the vicinity faces great problems. It has been further stated in the plaint that the smoke arises out of the Tandoor Bhatti of the Marriage Garden also creates a lot of trouble to the residents of the colony. Even the garbage of the marriage garden is thrown by the employees in the colony. Hence, the plaintiffs filed a suit against the defendants for the relief stated above. 3. The defendants by filing the written statement denied averments made in the plaint stating that there lies a 150 feet vide terrain between the marriage garden and the colony where the appellants reside. Garbage of the marriage garden was never thrown in the colony, so also the DJ system is not played after 10 p.m. The boundary wall of the marriage garden is also very high. In fact, the plaintiffs are trying to encroach upon the land of the marriage garden by putting angles for making sheds, hence, the suit was filed with a view to pressurise the defendants. Therefore, the suit filed by the plaintiffs for the relief stated above is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed. 4. In fact, the plaintiffs are trying to encroach upon the land of the marriage garden by putting angles for making sheds, hence, the suit was filed with a view to pressurise the defendants. Therefore, the suit filed by the plaintiffs for the relief stated above is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed. 4. After framing of issues, recording evidence of both the parties and having considered the recorded evidence, the learned trial Court decreed the suit of the plaintiffs against the defendants as stated above. 5. Being aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed by learned trial Court, the defendants filed an appeal before the first appellate Court which was also dismissed. Hence, this second appeal has been filed as stated herein above. 6. Heard learned counsel for the appellants and perused the record. 7. The learned counsel for the appellants criticizing the findings recorded by both the learned Courts below submits that both the Courts have committed error in decreeing the suit for issuing permanent injunction against the appellants/defendants as the music system DJ is not played after 10 p.m. and no public nuisance is created by the defendants. The counsel further pleads that findings recorded by both the Courts are irrational, illegal and perverse to the recorded evidence so deserve to be set aside. The learned counsel further undertakes on behalf of the appellants/defendants during course of arguments for not using the music system DJ after 10 p.m. so the decree passed by the Courts below be set aside. 8. Arguments were considered. On perusal of the record, it is evident that indisputably the defendants have established a marriage garden for marriage purpose professionally wherein music system DJ is used. It is obvious that the sound produce by DJ usually creates a great noise causing sound pollution. It is also true that as per the recorded evidence, a lot of people reside in the colony near the marriage garden facing this trouble. In view of the aforesaid facts, both the learned Courts below have rightly drawn the conclusion regarding public nuisance created by the defendants. It is also true that as per the recorded evidence, a lot of people reside in the colony near the marriage garden facing this trouble. In view of the aforesaid facts, both the learned Courts below have rightly drawn the conclusion regarding public nuisance created by the defendants. So far as the undertaking given by the appellant for not using the music system after 10 p.m. is concerned, it has no meaning and does not appear to be bonafide as the injunction issued by the Courts also prohibits the defendants/appellants for using the music system after 10 p.m., owing to which, the said order does not cause any harm to the appellants/defendants. Since the findings of both the Courts are concurrent and no substantial question of law crops up here for consideration, the appeal being meritless is hereby dismissed.