Damages, Inspections, Contract

The court issuing the appealed decision when supported the first instance judgment set forth to remove the damage based on the judge of the trial court on set inspection and thus used the said inspection and used it as a proof for the existence of damage and used its authority as a trial court in assessing the means of proof provided to it and considered it sufficient to draw its conclusion and was not obliged to take any other investigation measures as long as it found what concluded its satisfaction and proved an unusual damage through the existence of a carpenter in the middle of the appellants’ residences and the high volume noises the machines make as well as the propagation of dust which constitute a changeable damage that cannot remain in one state and is not subject to statute of limitation and that pursuant to the provisions of Article 91 of the code of obligations and contracts, the unusual neighboring damage should be removed and the authorization of the administrative authorities should not hinder the removal of the damage. Thus, the court’s decision is well founded.