Introduction

The case of I Square Infrastructure And Developers Through Its Partner And Others Applicant v. State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Principal Secretary And Others Non-applicants, adjudicated by the Chhattisgarh High Court on September 15, 2020, addresses critical procedural aspects concerning the institution of public interest suits under Section 91 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC). The plaintiff, a registered society, sought a declaration of civil rights and protection from public nuisance pertaining to a 0.42-acre park area initially sanctioned for public use but later encroached upon by the defendant, I Square Infrastructure & Developers.

The central issue revolved around whether the trial court correctly deemed the commencement of the suit from the date the leave to file the suit was granted, despite the absence of a formal application seeking such leave at the inception of the suit.

Summary of the Judgment

The Chhattisgarh High Court dismissed the revision petition filed by I Square Infrastructure & Developers, upholding the trial court's decision. The trial court had ruled that even though the plaintiff initially filed the suit without seeking the mandatory leave under Section 91 CPC, the subsequent grant of leave effectively deemed the suit as instituted from the date the leave was granted. The High Court reinforced this interpretation by referencing relevant precedents, ultimately finding no procedural irregularity in the trial court's approach.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

The judgment extensively referenced several pivotal cases to substantiate the court's reasoning:

• A.C. Muthiah v. Board of Control for Cricket in India (2011) 6 SCC 617: Highlighted the necessity of obtaining court leave before instituting a public interest lawsuit, emphasizing procedural compliance.
• Bansidhar Sankarlal v. Md. Ibrahim (1970) 3 SCC 900: Established that any suit or proceeding initiated without the requisite leave is ineffective until such leave is granted, after which the suit is deemed instituted on the date of grant.
• Kintali China Jaganadham v. K. Laxmi Naidu (AIR 1988 Ori 100): Reinforced that suits filed without court leave must be considered as instituted only upon the grant of such leave, rendering prior proceedings invalid.
• Bhupendra Singh Babara v. Municipal Council Ambikapur (2001) 3 M.P.H.T. 80 (CG): Affirmed that suits of this nature are validly instituted only after obtaining the necessary court permission.
• Civil Appeal No(s).6067/2010 (2019 SCC OnLine SC 1296): Further clarified procedural nuances related to the grant of leave in public interest litigations.

Legal Reasoning

The court meticulously dissected Section 91 of the CPC, which governs the institution of public interest suits. According to this provision, two or more persons may file a suit concerning a public nuisance or wrongful act affecting the public, but only with the leave of the court. The absence of an initial leave application in the present case was scrutinized against established precedents.

Drawing parallels from Bansidhar Sankarlal and Kintali China Jaganadham, the court concluded that a suit initiated without requisite leave is ineffective until such leave is obtained. Once the court grants leave, the suit's commencement is retroactively acknowledged from the date the leave was sanctioned, not from the initial filing. This interpretation ensures procedural diligence without penalizing litigants unduly in situations where leave is subsequently granted.

The court also addressed the appellant's reliance on A.C. Muthiah, distinguishing the present case where no formal objection was raised by the defendant regarding the lack of leave. Hence, the principles from A.C. Muthiah were deemed inapplicable as a precedence in this context.

Impact

This judgment reinforces the procedural safeguards under Section 91 CPC, ensuring that public interest suits are initiated with proper judicial oversight. By affirming that suits are deemed instituted upon the grant of leave, the court provides clarity on the effective date of such actions, thereby influencing future litigations. It underscores the judiciary's commitment to maintaining procedural integrity while facilitating the redressal of public grievances.

Legal practitioners must heed the importance of adhering to procedural requisites, specifically securing court leave before petitioning under Section 91 CPC. This ensures the validity and enforceability of their suits, thereby preventing potential dismissals on technical grounds.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Section 91 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC): This section allows public interest litigants to file suits concerning public nuisances or wrongful acts affecting the public. However, such suits can only be initiated by the Advocate-General or by two or more persons with the court's permission (leave).

Public Nuisance: An act or omission that endangers human life, health, safety, property, environment, or the comfort of the community.

Leave of the Court: Judicial permission required to initiate certain types of lawsuits. Without this permission, the suit cannot proceed.

Deemed Date of Institution: The official date from which the legal proceedings are considered to have started. In this context, it is the date when the court grants leave to file the suit, not the initial filing date.

Conclusion

The Chhattisgarh High Court's judgment in I Square Infrastructure And Developers v. State Of Chhattisgarh emphatically clarifies the procedural framework governing public interest suits under Section 91 CPC. By determining that the institution of such suits is deemed effective from the date the court grants leave, the court ensures both procedural adherence and equitable consideration of litigants' claims. This decision serves as a pivotal reference for future cases, promoting diligent legal practices and safeguarding the integrity of public interest litigations.