1 S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No.1325/2008 Dharmendra Nandwana & Ors. vs. State of Raj. & Ors. S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No.1325/2008 Dharmendra Nandwana & Ors. vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. Date : 15.9.2008 HON'BLE MR. PRAKASH TATIA, J. Mr.Rajesh Joshi, for the appellants. - - - - - Heard learned counsel for the appellant. The appellants are aggrieved against the order dated 8.8.2008 passed by the Court of Additional District Judge No.2, Udaipur in Case No.27/2007 (88/2007) by which the appellants' injunction application was dismissed after taking note of the fact that before the present suit, a suit was filed by neighbour M/s. Amul K. Bakers and in that suit, injunction was refused by the trial court vide order dated 10.5.2007 whereupon appeal was filed but the same was also dismissed by the first appellate court vide order dated 24.5.2007. Thereafter, the present suit has been filed. The trial court also observed that the appellants are not directly connected with the property 2 S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No.1325/2008 Dharmendra Nandwana & Ors. vs. State of Raj. & Ors. in dispute nor affected by the act of the defendants/ respondents. Learned counsel for the appellants vehemently submitted that the appellants had no knowledge of the earlier suit filed by the other party and that suit was entirely of different nature and in that suit, the plaintiff also was interested applicant for allotment of the land as strip land in case, it is found that the land is not land of public way. It is also submitted that the trial court committed error in rejecting the appellants' injunction application on the ground that the appellants are not affected persons. It is also submitted that the suit was filed under Section 91 CPC and in that, it is not necessary that the party who is adversely affected alone can file the suit. Section 91 is only for removal of public nuisance and that can be sought by any person who is not personally affected by the act of the party. I considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and perused the reasons given in the impugned order. It is not in dispute that the respondents State 3 S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No.1325/2008 Dharmendra Nandwana & Ors. vs. State of Raj. & Ors. and Municipal Board, Udaipur want to construct a public utility place i.e. bathroom for ladies on the land in question and, therefore, the respondents are also proceeding for giving benefits to the public and the contention of the appellants also is founded on the basis of his alleged right of public for enjoyment of the land in dispute. In view of the above reason, when public body without any personal interest is doing public work, then the party filing suit under Section 91 CPC is required to show a better case. In view of the above reasons, the impugned order cannot be said to be perverse, capricious or arbitrary in any manner so as to be interfered by this Court while exercising appellate jurisdiction. Consequently, this appeal, having no merits, is hereby dismissed. (PRAKASH TATIA), J. S.Phophaliya