Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

(4) Counsel for the petitioners has vehemently argued that the act complained by the respondent in the plaint amounts to a public nuisance and thus, in view of Section 91 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the suit could not be maintainable except in consonance with the provisions of Section 91, which clearly lay down that in case of a public nuisance or other wrongful act affecting or likely to affect the public, a suit for declaration and injunction or for such other relief may be instituted by the Advocate General, or with the leave of the Court, by two or more persons, even though no special damage has been caused to such persons by reason of such public nuisance or other wrongful act.

(5) The learned Counsel for the petitioners, however, forgets that Section 91(2) makes it clear that nothing in this section shall be deemed to limit or otherwise affect any right of suit which may exist independently of its provisions. It is obvious that if a particular right of suit arises in favor of a particular person, even if there is public nuisance, even then such right of suit is not affected by provisions of Section 91 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

(6) In the present case, it is not any public street in which any nuisance is being created so that it could be treated as a public nuisance, as contemplated by Section 91 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The act of the petitioners, which is complained of, has occurred on a common courtyard to which the customers visiting the shops on the first floor have right of access besides the shops are located on the first floor. Assuming for the sake of arguments that it has also some element of public nuisance as customers generally can visit the said place without any hinderance, even then the cause of action has accrued to the plaintiff as his individual rights arc being affected by the acts of the petitioners/defendants. It is the business premises of the respondent/plaintiff which are being affected allegedly by the construction of the said steel racks and thus, it is evident that respondent/plaintiff has an independent right to sue in respect of the alleged acts of the petitioners even if those acts of the petitioners may also amount to public nuisance as well. Section 91(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure clearly gives the right to file a suit which is independent of the provisions of Section 91.