The interpretation of 'matter' in Section 41(j) of the Specific Relief act, 1963 should encompass the right claimed by the plaintiff, and lack of personal interest should not be narrowly construed.

JUDGMENT

C. Hari Shankar, J. - This second appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC), assails an order dated 26th September, 2019, passed by the learned additional District Judge ('the learned aDJ') in Misc appl 576/2018, whereby the learned aDJ has reversed an order dated 20th July, 2018, passed by the learned JSCC-aSCJ-GJ ('the learned Civil Judge').

2. The plaint, from which these proceedings emanate, was preferred by the respondents against the appellants, seeking mandatory injunction, directing the appellants to remove malba, garbage etc., which they were alleged to have thrown in open land adjacent to the respondents' premises and for permanently restraining the appellants from throwing any such malwa, garbage etc. at the said land. It was specifically alleged, in para 17 of the plaint, that consequent to certain disputes having arisen between the appellants and the respondents, whereby the appellants were restrained, as a result of which the appellants were allegedly thwarted in their attempts to raise construction on the open land, they started depositing garbage therein. The plaint also asserts that the respondents had, in this context, addressed a written complaint to the Police Station Mayur Vihar on 13th November, 2012 but that the nuisance continued.

3. The learned Civil Judge, vide order dated 20th July, 2018, dismissed the suit as not being maintainable in view of Section 41(j) of the Specific Relief act, 1963, which proscribes grant of injunction 'when the plaintiff has no personal interest in the matter'.

4. On the ground that the respondents have no personal interest in the matter, the learned Civil Judge rejected the suit for want of existence of a valid cause of action, exercising jurisdiction under Order VII Rule 11(a) of the CPC. Paras 2 to 6 of the order of the learned Civil Judge read thus:

'2. In paragraph 4 of the plaint of this suit, the plaintiffs have themselves pleaded that they have no right, title or interest in respect of the open land shown in the site plan filed along with the plaint and they have trespassed upon the said land, just like the other owners of flats of ground floors, of the locality.

3. along with the plaint of this suit, the plaintiffs have filed an Order dated 12.07.2012, passed by Dr. Saurabh Kulshrestha, the then Ld. Commercial Civil Judge, East District, KKD Courts, Delhi in a previous suit filed by the plaintiffs against the defendants, seeking reliefs of injunctions qua the open land shown in the site plan filed along with the plaint. In the said Order, Dr. Saurabh Kulshrestha, the then Ld. Commercial Civil Judge, East District, KKD Courts, Delhi has observed that the plaintiffs have no exclusive rights in respect of the open land shown in the site plan filed along with the plaint.

4. From the pleadings made in paragraph 4 of the plaint and from the observations made by Dr. Saurabh Kulshrestha, the then Ld. Commercial Civil Judge, East District, KKD Courts, Delhi in the aforesaid Order, I am convinced that the plaintiffs have no personal right, title or interest, in respect of the open land shown in the site plan filed along with the plaint.

5. In Section 41(j) of the Specific Relief act, 1963, it is specifically provided that no injunction can be granted when the plaintiff has no personal interest in the matter.

6. Keeping in view the fact that the plaintiffs have no personal right, title or interest in respect of the open land shown in the site plan filed along with the plaint and keeping in view the fact that Section 41(j) of the Specific Relief act, 1963 does not permit this Court to grant any injunction to a plaintiff having no personal interest in the matter, the plaint of this suit is rejected under Order VII Rule 11(a) of CPC, 1908.

after preparation of decree sheet by the Reader, the file shall be consigned to the record room.'

5. The respondents appealed to the learned aDJ who, by the impugned order dated 26th September, 2019, reversed the view