The judgment establishes that Section 91(1) of the Civil Procedure Code is an enabling provision and does not restrict the right of a person to independently file a suit. It also emphasizes the importance of adhering to the principles of natural justice in legal proceedings.

L.N.Mitta, J.

1. This is application for impleading legal representatives of plaintiff Jamal Masih (since deceased), who died during pendency of the first appeal. It is alleged in the application that the deceased plaintiff has left behind widow, three sons and three daughters, as mentioned in paragraph 2 of the application, as his only legal heirs. The application is accompanied by affidavit. Accordingly, the application is allowed, subject to all just exceptions and persons mentioned in paragraph 2 of the application are ordered to be brought on record as legal representatives of plaintiff-Jamal Masih (since deceased), for the purpose of this appeal. Main Appeal Instant second appeal has been filed by defendants Satnam Singh and his father Kapur Singh, who remained unsuccessful in both the courts below.

2. Suit was filed by Jamal Masih (since deceased and represented by respondents as legal representatives). The plaintiff alleged that there is a public street in Village Kalanaur, comprised of khasra no.522/1. Defendants house is located on southern side of the said street. Plaintiffs house is also located along the street. Defendants have encroached upon a portion of the disputed street by raising walls from points A to B and from B to C, as depicted in the site plan and thereby, encroached upon the street and they intended to raise further construction in the street. The aforesaid encroachment is causing public nuisance and is also causing hardship to the plaintiff. Accordingly, plaintiff sought mandatory injunction for removal of the encroachment already made and also permanent injunction from raising any construction over any part of the street.

3. Defendants admitted the existence of the street, although alleged that there is no khasra number of the street. Defendants also admitted that house of the defendants is located on southern side of the adjoining street. Location of the plaintiffs house in the same street is denied. Defendants also denied that they have encroached upon any part of the street. Various other pleas were also raised.

4. Learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Gurdaspur, vide judgment and decree dated 27.03.2002, decreed the plaintiffs suit. First appeal preferred by the defendants stands dismissed by learned Additional District Judge (Adhoc), Fast Track Court, Gurdaspur, vide judgment and decree dated 02.05.2009. Feeling aggrieved, defendants have preferred the instant second appeal.

5. I have heard learned counsel for the appellants and perused the case file.

6. Learned counsel for the appellants vehemently contended that suit filed by the plaintiff relating to public nuisance is barred by Section 91(1) of the Code of Civil Procedure (in short - CPC), which stipulates that suit relating to public nuisance may be filed either by Advocate General or with the leave of the Court, by two or more persons, whereas in the instant case, the suit was filed by Jamal Masih alone and leave of the Court was also not sought for filing suit.

7. I have carefully considered the aforesaid contention, but find no merit therein, although apparently the contention sounds very forceful. Section 91(1) CPC is an enabling provision and it has enlarged the scope of locus standi to file a suit. Normal rule of law is that a person, having right or being effected by a wrongful act of the opposite party, has locus standi to file the suit. However, under Section 91(1) CPC, even persons to whom no special damage has been caused by the public nuisance or other wrongful act, may also file the suit by complying with the conditions stipulated in Section 91(1) CPC. However, this provision does not, in any manner, restrict the right of a person, who independently of this provision, has right or locus standi to file the suit in view of wrong caused to him. This fact is made further clear by Section 91(2) CPC, which provides amount of Rs.234060.60 on account of defective meter. It was further found that no defect was found in the me