The main legal point established in the judgment is the maintainability of a suit in the individual capacity under Section 91 of the CPC, the requirement of proving nuisance causing damages or violation of personal or private rights, and the imposition of compensatory costs under Section 35A of the CPC.

ASHUTOSH KUMAR , J.

1. The appellants/plaintiffs namely (i) Suresh Chandra Goyal having residence at B-45, Maharani Bagh, New Delhi, (ii) M/s Goyal Gases Private Limited having registered office at M-136, 2nd Floor, Connaught Circus, New Delhi and (iii) Ravi Chawla having residence at B-43, Maharani Bagh, New Delhi, lodged suit no.119/2006 against the three private respondents as well as Municipal Corporation of Delhi (for short ‘MCD’) and Delhi Development Authority (for short ‘DDA’) accompanied by an application under Section 91 of the CPC which, though, was not pressed before the Trial Court, with the following reliefs :

i. A decree of declaration that the defendant nos.1 to 3 have no right, title or interest with respect to plot nos. 7B/1 and 7B/2, Taimur Nagar and adjoining area falling within 80 ft. Wide road or any part thereof;

ii. a decree of injunction against the defendant nos.1 to 3 restraining them from encroaching upon the public road in any manner whatsoever on the western side of the plot nos.7B/1 and 7B/2 Taimur Nagar, New Delhi;

iii. a decree of injunction against the defendant nos.1 and 2 restraining them from carrying on construction of buildings on the plot nos.7B/1 and 7B/2, Taimur Nagar, New Delhi;

iv. a decree of permanent injunction against the defendant nos.1 and 2 restraining them, their servants, employees and agents from throwing debris of the demolished house and storing building materials on the public road in front of B-45, Maharani Bagh, New Delhi;

v. a decree of permanent injunction against the defendant no.3 restraining him from digging and/or excavating the place of land and making any construction thereat falling within 80 ft. wide public road in front of B-45, Maharani Bagh, New Delhi and further restraining him from throwing and/or spreading excavated soil over the said public road in front of B-45, Maharani Bagh, New Delhi;

vi. a decree of mandatory injunction directing the defendant no.4 and 5 to perform their duty to stop the defendant nos. 1 to 3 from doing and/or causing to do the aforesaid acts;

vii. a decree of mandatory injunction directing the defendants nos.1 to 3 to remove the excavated soil, debris and building materials from the said public road and in front of B-45, Maharani Bagh, New Delhi;

viii. a decree mandatory injunction against the defendant nos.1 to 3 to remove and/or demolish all the unauthorised and/or illegal constructions raised over the said plot nos.7B/1 and 7B/2 and the area adjoining the said two plots;

ix. a decree of mandatory injunction against the defendant nos.1 and 2 directing them to construct the building, if they have any right to do so, strictly in accordance with the sanctioned plan and not to put any door, windows, projections in the western side of the building under construction;

x. a decree of mandatory injunction against the defendant nos.1 and 2 directing them to raise a brick wall towards west of the plot nos.7B/1 and 7B/2 at the place where there was a brick wall demolished by the said defendants;

xi. any other reliefs; and

xii. costs.

2. Section 91 of the CPC deals with suits relating to public nuisances and other wrongful acts affecting the public, which reads as hereunder:

“91. Public nuisances.— (1) in the case of a public nuisance or other wrongful act affecting, or likely to affect, the public, a suit for a declaration and injunction or for such other relief as may be appropriate in the circumstances of the case, may be instituted,—

(a) by the Advocate General, or

(b) 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.

(2) Nothing in this Section shall be deemed to limit or otherwise affect any right of suit which may exist independently of its provisions. ”

3. Sub-clause 2 of the Section 91 of the CPC clarifies that the right of the plaintiff to file a suit is not otherwise affected and such right can be exercised independen