THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY
CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 3335 OF 2011 Dated:20-11-2014 Between:
Muralidhar
... PETITIONER
AND
Sharada bai and two others
.. RESPONDENTS
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 3335 OF 2011 ORDER:
The 1st respondent is the wife of the 2nd respondent. Both of them filed O.S No. 875 of 2011 in the Court of II Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad for the relief of mandatory and perpetual injunction against the petitioner and the 3rd respondent. Since the suit was filed in representative capacity, they filed I.A No. 403 of 2011 under Section 91(1) read with Section 151 CPC, with a prayer to grant permission to institute the suit. The trial Court passed an order dated 15-04-2011 according permission. The said order is challenged in this revision.
Heard Sri Sreenivasa Rao Velivela, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri K.V. Subrahmanya Narusu, learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 and 2.
Normally, it is for the person who feels aggrieved, to institute suit against the persons who are said to have caused wrong to him or her. Section 91 of the CPC creates a special facility of filing representative suits. The suits of that nature are filed where the wrong or inconvenience is felt by the society at large. Naturally it is only a few persons who can pursue the litigation and one cannot expect the public in general, to become parties. Since the persons who institute the suits do not have independent grievance, CPC requires that they must obtain permission under Section 91 before they institute the suit.
In the instant case, respondent Nos.1 and 2 do not have any specific grievance against the petitioner. However, they wanted to espouse the cause of the persons in the locality vis-à-vis the alleged deviations on the part of the petitioner. The trial Court was expected to examine the application on the touch stone of Section 91 CPC and record reasons before according permission. However, the application was ordered with only one word, namely, “Permitted”.
The second aspect is that Section 91 CPC, by itself does not mandate that notice must be issued to the defendants before according such permission. However, there is nothing in law, which prohibits issuance of notice to the defendants. Since the defendants in suits of that nature would be facing litigation from a person who does not have his own grievance, it is essential that notice is issued to them before permission is granted.
Hence, the C.R.P is allowed and the order under revision is set aside. The trial court shall decide I.A No. 403 of 2011 afresh after hearing both the parties.
The miscellaneous petitions filed in this revision shall also stand disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.
L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J
20-11-2014
ks