JUDGMENT : STANLEY, BANERJI, JJ. This is an appeal under the Letters Patent. The plaintiffs respondents are the managers of the temple of Lachmi Narain and of lands and shops appertaining thereto and also of another temple, all situate at Rikhi Kesh. The defendant appellant is Mahant of the Bharatji temple at Rikhi Kesh and the zamindar of Rikhi Kesh. There is a public road leading from the temple of the plaintiffs which was obstructed by the defendant, he having erected thereon some buildings. The suit out of which this appeal has arisen was instituted for the purpose of having the obstruction removed and of obtaining a perpetual injunction restraining the defendants from obstructing the way in future. The court of first instance dismissed the plaintiffs' claim, but upon appeal the lower appellate court reversed that decision. A second appeal was then preferred which came before the learned Judge against whose decision this appeal has been preferred. He held that as the plaintiffs, their servants and tenants, who lived on the premises connected with the temple, were obstructed in bringing their carts and ekkas by the road in question, which was a shorter route, the plaintiff's thereby suffered greater inconvenience and more substantial loss of time than would be suffered by the ordinary members of the public. The grounds upon which this appeal under the Letters Patent is supported are that it is not shown that the plaintiffs suffered any special inconvenience or injury from the obstruction. It is well-settled law that in the case of a public road a private action cannot be maintained in respect of an obstruction to it by a person, unless he suffers particular damage beyond what is suffered by him in common with all other persons affected by the nuisance; see Bhawan Singh v. Narrotam Singh, (1909) I.L.R., 31 All., 444 also Gehanaji bin Kes Patil v. Ganpati bin Lakshuman, (1875) I.L.R. 2 Bom., 469. In this case it is found by the lower appellate court that the plaintiff did suffer special inconvenience and injury from the obstruction, and it is obvious that this is so; they occupy the premises belonging to the temple, and it is necessary for them to use carts for the supply of provisions and ekkas for their servants and tenants and the detour which they were obliged to make by reason of the obstruction caused to them not merely loss of time but particular inconvenience. In view of this we think that our learned brother was right in the decision at which he arrived. He upheld the view of the lower appellate court. The cases of Hart v. Bassett, 13 Jones' Reports, 156 and Blagrave v. The Bristol Waterworks Company, (1856) 1 H. and N. 369 show that the stopping of a highway and thereby rendering it necessary for a person to make a detour was such special damage as justified him in instituting a suit for the removal of the obstruction. We dismiss the appeal with costs.