Prakash Gupta, J.

This revision petition has been filed against the Order dated 23/12/2013 passed by the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Neem ka Thana in civil suit No. 82/2003 (172/2005), titling Hansraj v. Hanuman Prasad, whereby the application filed by the petitioner-defendant under Order 7, Rule 11 C.P.C. was dismissed.

2. Brief facts are that the plaintiffs-respondents Nos. 1 and 2 instituted a Regular Civil Suit before the learned trial Court for declaration and permanent as well as mandatory injunction against the defendant-petitioner and Municipal Board, Neem ka Thana on 03/09/2003, inter alia, claiming the following reliefs: -

^^¼d½ ;g fd okn i= ds lkFk layXu ekufp= esa v{kj d&[k&x&?k ls nf'kZr Hkwfe dks jkLrk vke o iM+r Hkwfe vke ?kksf"kr fd;k tkosA

¼[k½ ;g fd izfroknh la0 1 ds }kjk fookfnr Hkwfe d&[k&x&?k ij fd;s x;s vfrdze.k dks /oLr fd;k tkdj mls jkLrk vke o iM+r Hkwfe ds mi;ksx&miHkksx ds fy, iwoZor [kqyok;k tkosA

¼x½ ;g fd izfroknh la0 2 uxjikfydk dks LFkkbZ fu"ks/kkKk ls ikcUn fd;k tkos fd og izfroknh la0 1 o fdlh vU; dks fookn dh Hkwfe d&[k&x&?k dk iV~Vk tkjh ugha djs] vkSj uk gh fuekZ.k Lohd`r iznku djsA

¼?k½ ;g fd izfroknhx.k dks LFkkbZ fu"ks/kkKk ls ikcUn fd;k tk;s fd os layXu ekufp= esa nf'kZr d&[k&x&?k jkLrk vke o lkoZtfud ij oknhx.k ,oa ukxfjdksa ds vkokxeu o okgu ykus ys tkus esa fdlh izdkj dh ck/kk ,oa :dkoV u MkysA**

3. An application under Order 7, Rule 11 CPC was filed by the petitioner-defendant raising an objection about the maintainability of the suit in absence of a notice as required to be served under Section 271 of Rajasthan Municipality Act, 1959 (for short 'the Act').

4. A reply to the application was filed by the respondents-plaintiffs, para 1 of the reply as follows:

^^1& ;g fd izkFkZuk i= dh [k.M la0 1 Lohdkj gSA

2& ;g fd izkFkZuk i= dh [k.M la[;k 2 feF;k gksus ls Lohdkj ugha gSA ewy okn izLrqr fd, tkus ls iwoZ oknhx.k us izfroknh la0 2 uxjikfydk uhedkFkkuk dks nks ekg dh vof/k dk fof/kor uksfVl fnukad 16-5-2002 ¼lksyg ebZ lu nks gtkj nks½ dks uxjikfydk vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 271 dh vuqikyuk esa fn;k Fkk vksj mDr frfFk dks gh uxjikfydk uhedkFkkuk ds deZpkjh us uksfVl izkIr fd;k FkkA ,sls uksfVl esa Jh guqekuizlkn [k.Msyoky izfroknh la0 1 ds fo:) jkLrk vke esa fd, x;s vfrdze.k dks gVokus dk vuqrks"k pkgk x;k Fkk vkSj Li"V dj fn;k x;k Fkk fd uxjikfydk uhedkFkkuk }kjk vfrdze.k ugha gVkus dh fLFkfr esa oknh ¼izkFkhZ½ dks U;k;ky; dh 'kj.k ysuh iM+sxhA**

5. The trial Court as indicated herein above, rejected the application filed by the petitioner-defendant No. 1, hence, this revision.

6. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner Mr. Mahesh Gupta that the plaintiff sought relief of declaration as well as injunction and the same was sought against the Municipal Board, Neem ka Thana and as such without compliance of Section 271 of the Act, the suit is not maintainable. He relied upon Nagar Palika, Nathdwara v. Temple Board, Nathdwara reported in RLW 1981 page 239, Anil Kumar Shrivastava v. Mukesh Chand Saxena & ors. Reported in RRT 2015 (1) 114, Mohammed Shafi and Others v. Sant Kumar and Others reported in WLC (Raj.) 1993 (1) page 11, Kanti and Others v. U.I.T., Bikaner and others reported in AIR 1998 page 108, Anand Laxmi Enterprises v. Vasant Balu Mhatre & ors. reported in 2009 (1) CCC 696 (Bombay) and Nagar Palika Parishad, Mihona and Anr. v. Ramnath, Anr. reported in 2014 (2) WLC (Sc) Civil 204 and Murli Ram & Ors. v. State of Rajasthan & Ors. reported in 2014(3) DNJ (Raj.) 1105.

7. It is also submitted that the plaintiffs filed this suit with regard to the public way and removal of the structure constructed, affecting the said public way. In view of Section 91(1) of CPC, the suit for public nuisance can only be filed by the Advocate General or with the leave of the Court by two or more persons. In the case at hand, the plaintiffs does not have an independent right over the said public way. Therefore, as per Section 91(1) of CPC, the suit filed by the plaintiff-respondent is not ma