The judgment established the principle that unless a statute excludes resort to the civil court for vindicating a civil right, the party is entitled to seek remedies in the civil court. However, where the statute creates rights for the first time, the machinery prescribed by the statute for enforcing such rights will be available to the person.

1. I am afraid the suit is misconceived. Though the maintainability of the suit was challenged by the first defendant successfully is the trial court, the court below has held that the suit as framed would lie and the plaintiff is entitled to seek the reliefs which he has claimed in the suit.

2. Plaintiff has styled himself as the manager of one Prabha Talkies, a theatre exhibiting cinematograph films at Tellicherry. According to him the proprietor of the concern is his sister-in-law and on her behalf he is managing the business. First defendant is the proprietor of one Lotus Talkies engaged in the business of exhibition of cinematograph films for which purpose he applied for licence to the Tellicherry Municipality and obtained the same. The Municipal Commissioner of the Tellicherry Municipality is the second defendant. Plaintiff bad objected to the issue of licence to the first defendant on several grounds including one that the distance between the two theatres was less than what is prescribed by the rules. This objection of the plaintiff was not looked into and therefore the order is characterised as illegal and void. The plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction restraining the defendant from exhibiting cinematograph films in his theatre.

3. A contention is raised by the first defendant as to the sustainability of a plea of improper grant of license in a civil suit. According to him a suit for injunction, as here, cannot be maintained by another theatre owner on the ground that the requirements of the rules have not been properly complied with in the matter of the issue of licence to an exhibitor. Another objection taken is that the plaintiff is only the manager of Prabha Talkies and therefore he has no locus standi to file a suit. It is also contended that even otherwise there has been substantial compliance with the requirements of the rules.

4. Time and again the observations of Willes J. in the judgment in Wolverhamptron New Waterworks Co. v. Hawkes for (1859) 6 C. B. (N. S.) 336,356 have been quoted. The rule, enunciated with precision and clarity by the learned judge is in these terms.

There are three classes of cases in which liability may be established by statute:

(1) There is that class where there is a liability existing at common law which is only remedied by the statute with a special form of remedy; thus unless the statute contains words expressly excluding the common law remedy, the plaintiff has his election of proceeding either under the statute or at common law. (2) Then there is a second class, which consists of those cases in which a statute has created a liability but has given no special remedy for it: thus the party may adopt an action of debt or other remedy at common law to enforce it. The remedy which by law is properly applicable to the right or the obligation flows as an incident. (3) The third class is where a statute creates a liability not existing at common law, and gives also a particular remedy for enforcing it With respect to that class it has always been held that the party must adopt the form of remedy given by the statute."

5. If a person has a right at common law and in regard to this matter a statute is enacted which statute provides a machinery for working out the remedy if the right is infringed, still such person will be entitled to resort to a civil court to seek his remedies in regard to the infringement of his rights unless the statute excludes such resort to the civil court and confines his remedies to that provided by the statute. That is because even de hors the statute such a person had a civil right and unless the provisions of the statute are to be so read as excluding resort to the civil court for vindicating such civil right ouster of jurisdiction of civil courts cannot be assumed. But this rule does not hold good where the statute creates rights for the first time. In such cases it is the machinery prescribed by the statute which creates such rights that will be ava