I have granted an interlocutory injunction, pending the determination of the main case which has been entered, in the terms of an undertaking given by the respondents pending the determination of the present application.

Respondent No. 3 who also represented the other respondents gave an undertaking in respect of the use of loudspeakers when using them to diffuse music and songs of any kind as per the proecipe. The undertaking given was to the effect that the respondents would use loudspeakers from 6.30 p.m. to 10 p.m. only and this at a low level and inside the temple and/or any tarpaulin structure.

The applicant has set out in his affidavit the reasons prompted him to pray for an injunction. He has supported his averments by causing a constat to be made by an usher of the Supreme Court.

Respondent No. 3 has been given all latitude to show cause why the injunction should not be granted. In spite of having given an undertaking, the respondents have not complied with same and contende that the undertaking that was given did not extend to the loudspeakers being put inside the temple and/or any tarpaulin structure.

After considering all the averments on both sides, I have granted the interlocutory injunction as I am of the view that, in the light of the constat produced, the applicant has established that he has a right to be protected and that the prejudice suffered by him cannot be compensated by way of damages and that the balance of convenience is also on his side.

The respondents to pay the costs.

Saheeda PEEROO 13th November, 1996.