1. Abatement kills the right to sue and has the effect of unceremoniously terminating pending legal proceedings without adjudication on merits. therefore, the provision of abatement has to strictly construed and applied to such cases to which its applicability is undoubtedly attracted. Jeet Ram v. Ganga Phal (2006) 3 RCR (Civil) 407 (2). 

2. In Fleming, The Law of Torts 9th Edn. (1998),p.498 there is the following passage: "Abatement is a privilege, not a duty. An ancient ruling has it that it 'destroys  any right of action in respect of the nuisance'. But as now interpreted, it means no more that that the act of abatement has the effect of removing the nuisance so that the claimant is not entitled to future damages.He may, however, recover damages for past injury. And although some dicta assume that the cost of removing the nuisance is also irrecoverable, it has been held that this does not preclude reimbursement for the cost of mitigating future damage." Delaware Mansions Ltd. v. Westminster city council, [2002]1 A.C.321.