N. ANAND VENKATESH, J.

1. The appellants in this Original Side Appeal are the defendants in the suit filed before this Court in C.S.No.609 of 2016 and this OSA has been directed against the order passed by the learned single Judge in Application No.5506 of 2016, dated 21.03.2017 wherein the appellants sought for revocation of leave granted to the respondents herein who are the plaintiffs in the said suit.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties in the above appeal will be referred in accordance with their status in the above suit.

3. Brief Facts:

3.1. The plaintiffs filed the above suit for the relief of declaration and permanent injunction and for a direction against the defendants on a cause of action that the advertisement that was made in the newspaper and circulated in Chennai by the defendants has the effect of misleading the gullible general public and will induce innocent people/consumers into believing that the first defendant's product “Fortune VIVO - DIABETES - CARE OIL” can cure diabetes/high blood pressure levels and that such an advertisement made by the defendants will amount to a public nuisance and a wrongful act which will affect the public.

3.2. The plaintiffs laid their suit against the defendants with the aid of Section 91 CPC. Since there is a pre-requisite of getting the leave of the Court in order to institute a suit of this nature, the plaintiffs filed Application No.4209 of 2016 seeking the leave of the Court to institute the above suit. This Court by an order dated 26.08.2016 had granted leave to the plaintiffs to file the above suit.

3.3. The defendants after having been served notice in the above suit, being aggrieved by the leave granted by this Court, filed Application No.5506 of 2016 to revoke the leave granted to the plaintiffs. This Court after hearing both the sides and after considering the scope of Section 91 CPC and also the averments made in the plaint, dismissed the application to revoke the leave by an order dated 21.03.2017. Aggrieved by the same, the defendants have filed the present OSA.

4. We have heard the arguments put forth by Mr.P.R.Raman, learned Senior Counsel for Mr.C.Seepathy for the appellants, and Mr.J.Shivanandaraj, learned counsel for Mr.N.Senthil Kumar for the respondents.

5. Submissions of the Appellants:

5.1.The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellants\defendants would submit that the suit as filed by the plaintiffs does not fall within the scope of Section 91 CPC and at any rate a mere advertisement in a newspaper can never become a subject matter of challenge in a suit filed under Section 91 CPC. In support of his contention, the learned senior counsel brought to our notice the wordings employed under Section 91 CPC and urged that public nuisance is the only criteria that can be brought within the scope of Section 91 CPC and the words “other wrongful act'' must be read ejusdem generis. In other words, the learned senior counsel argued that even the wrongful act provided under Section 91 CPC must specifically relate to or denote “public nuisance” and the words “other wrongful” act cannot be given any independent meaning.

5.2. The learned Senior Counsel on the above said premise, developed his argument by placing reliance upon Section 3(48) of the General Clauses Act, 1897 and Section 268 of the Indian Penal Code and urged this Court to understand the meaning of public nuisance in terms of the language employed under Section 268 of the IPC. To support his arguments on the scope of Section 91 and Order 1 Rule 8 CPC, principle of ejusdem generis and the meaning and scope of the word “public nuisance”, the following judgments are relied upon.

(i)Bhupendra Singh Babara and Another Vs. Municipal Council Ambikapur and Another (MANU/SC/0051/2001);

(ii)M/s.Grasim Industries Ltd., Vs. Collector of Customs, Bombay(AIR 2002 SC 1706);

(iii)Maharashtra University of Health Sciences and Ors. Vs. Satchikitsa Prasarak Mandal & Ors. (AIR 2010 SC 1325);

(iv) Assistant Collec