Public nuisances and other wrongful acts affecting the public
Section 91 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 deals with public nuisances and other wrongful acts affecting the public. 1 ,[(1) In the case of a public nuisance or other wrongful act affecting, or likely to affect, the public, a suit for a declaration and injunction or for such other relief as may be appropriate in the circumstances of the case, may be instituted, (a) by the Advocate-General, or (b) with the leave of The Act came into force on 01 Jan 1909.
1 ,2[(1) In the case of a public nuisance or other wrongful act affecting, or likely to affect, the public, a suit for a declaration and injunction or for such other relief as may be appropriate in the circumstances of the case, may be instituted,
(a) by the Advocate-General, or
(b) with the leave of the Court, by two or more persons, even though no special damage has been caused to such persons by reason of such public nuisance or other wrongful act.]
(2) Nothing in this section shall be deemed to limit or otherwise affect any right of suit which may exist independently of its provisions.
Section 91, The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (Act 5 of 1908).
Cross-references
Extracted from the operative text of the enactments themselves. Every destination below exists in our corpus.
Related judgements & precedents
These are some judgments that construed this section, and hold precedence value. They hold authority on how to read, interpret and use this section.
-
Gunturi Varalakshmi v. State of Andhra Pradesh
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Final Order order-1.pdf 2017-07-07 DATE VERIFIED. WP 30773 of 2013. Gudiseva Shyam Prasad J. Isolates CPC 91: public nuisance / wrongful acts affecting the public — a suit for declaration and injunction under CPC 91 (or CrPC 133) is the ordinary remedy, not Art 226 first. Cites Jawarchand Poonamchand Dassaji. Map cpc 91 cited only. Do not pad crpc 133 (already filled).
On this section: Public nuisance is to be fought by a CPC 91 relator suit (or CrPC 133), not by jumping to a High Court mandamus (Gunturi Varalakshmi).
The holding above is the ratio decidendi as extracted from the judgment by eCourts India, reproduced unaltered — it is a rendering of the court's reasoning, not a substitute for its words. Read the order itself before relying on it.
Judgments citing this section
These may be obiter dicta or a precedent, for you to study. These are the judgments where this section is quoted.
-
… P.BHAVADASAN, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - R.S.A. No.588 of 2014 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 12th day of June, 2014 J U D G M E N T Eschewing all the unnecessary contentions raised on behalf of the appellant based on Section 91 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the decree granted reads as follows: "In the result, the suit is decreed as follows: 1) The defendants are restrained by a decree of permanent prohibitory injunction from carrying out quarrying works in the plaint B schedule property without proper licence and permits from the …
-
… When the appellant attempted to trespass into the plaint B schedule way, respondents 1 and 2 objected to that. The appellant filed O.S. No.2073 of 1987 against respondents 1 and 2 for a decree for prohibitory injunction. That suit was dismissed as not pressed. Respondents 1 and 2, filing the suit under Section 91 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short, "the Code") prayed for a decree for mandatory injunction. They also wanted respondents 3 to 5 to take action against the appellant for unauthorized possession of plaint B schedule. 4. Appellant contended that he is in possession of the puramboke land since long. He …
-
… No.807 of 2008 of the court of learned Sub Judge, Irinjalakuda are the petitioners before me challenging Ext.P6, order declining to dispose of I.A. No.4176 of 2010 as prayed for in Ext.P5, application (I.A. No.1883 of 2011). 2. Respondent 1 and 2 filed the suit against petitioners under Section 91 of the Code of Civil Procedure alleging public nuisance. According to them, petitioners trespassed into a portion of the public road and annexed that portion to their property. Having regard to the contentions raised by petitioners, leaned Sub Judge appointed a survey commission to measure the property and submit …
Questions about Section 91
What have the courts held on Section 91 of the Code of Civil Procedure?
Gunturi Varalakshmi v. State of Andhra Pradesh (07 Jul 2017) is the leading judgment on this section among those set out below: Public nuisance is to be fought by a CPC 91 relator suit (or CrPC 133), not by jumping to a High Court mandamus (Gunturi Varalakshmi).
How do I find court cases under Section 91 of the Code of Civil Procedure?
In judgments and charge sheets this section is written several ways, and each form finds a different set of orders. These search the full text of every order eCourtsIndia holds, best matches first: CPC 91, section 91 CPC, section 91 of the Code of Civil Procedure. People searching for it also type cpc 91 2. Each opens the full list of orders on eCourtsIndia, where it can be narrowed by court, year and outcome. 1 reported judgment on this section is set out on this page, beginning with Gunturi Varalakshmi v. State of Andhra Pradesh (07 Jul 2017).
What should I read with Section 91 of the Code of Civil Procedure, and has it changed?
3 other provisions in this corpus refer back to it.
When did Section 91 of the Code of Civil Procedure come into force?
Section 91 of the Code of Civil Procedure, cited as CPC 91, came into force on 01 Jan 1909, having been enacted on 21 Mar 1908. It is in force as at the date shown on this page.
Other sections of this Act
- 115. Revision2475 words
- 60. Property liable to attachment and sale in execution of decree1869 words
- 2. Definitions890 words
- 9. Courts to try all civil suits unless barred714 words
- 42. Powers of Court in executing transferred decree653 words
- 92. Public charities610 words
Source and method. Compiled from the enactments of Parliament and of the State legislatures as published on India Code, and republished together with commentary and other original matter under section 52(1)(q)(ii) of the Copyright Act, 1957. Structured, cross-referenced and maintained by eCourtsIndia. Text as in force on 15 Oct 2026. This page is not a substitute for legal advice.