Judgment :- 1. The revision is against an order staying the suit under S.3 of Act 30 of 1975. The plaintiff is the revision petitioner. The suit is one for a declaration of plaintiffs easement right over plaint C-schedule pathway, for ingress and egress to plaint A and B schedules and the Ganapathy Temple and for consequential relief of injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the plaintiff's right of way therein, for a mandatory injunction directing defendants 1 to 5 and other defendants under them to remove the shed put up by them in the C-schedule property and the plantains and arecanut plants and other plants planted by them therein with a view to obstruct plaintiff's right of way, and alternatively in case of defendants' refusal to do so to allow the plaintiff to remove them and to recover the costs which may thereby be incurred by the plaintiff, for recovery of an amount of Rs. 2,058/- being damage sustained by the plaintiff due to misappropriation of the income of plaint A and B sche-dute properties by the defendants who are alleged to have obstructed the right of way of the plaintiff by committing the tortious act of putting up a shed over the pathway and other incidental reliefs and costs. 2. The court below has merely stated: "Defendant's counsel states that the suit is hit by S.3 of Act 30 of 1975 in view of averments in Para.5 of the plaint. Heard both sides. Opposed by Plaintiff's counsel. I consider that the suit is to be stayed under Act 30 of 1975. Stayed. Call on 12101975. The plaintiff has come to this Court questioning the validity of this order.1 think the court below has acted with material irregularity in exercising its jurisdiction in the matter. In the first instance, the order does not give the reasons why the suit should be stayed. Reading the prayers in the plaint, it is difficult to accept the lower court's view that the suit has to be stayed under Act 30 of 1975. The reliefs prayed for in the suit and the monetary claim therein are in respect of the tortious liability of the defendants in wrongfully creating obstruction to the plaintiff's right of way and misappropriating the income of plaint A and B schedule properties belonging to the plaintiff. 3. The reliefs prayed for in the suit and the monetary claim therein are in respect of the tortious liability of the defendants in wrongfully creating obstruction to the plaintiff's right of way and misappropriating the income of plaint A and B schedule properties belonging to the plaintiff. 3. S.2 (4) (c) of Act 30 of 1975 exempts any tortious liability from the ambit of the debt as defined in the Act. What exactly is a tortious liability? A tort is a species of civil injury or wrong. A civil wrong is one which gives rise to civil proceedings proceedings, that is to say, which have as their purpose the enforcement of some right claimed by the plaintiff as against the defendant. Although a tort is a civil injury, not all civil injuries arc torts, for as Salmond says, no civil injury is to be classed as a tort unless the appropriate remedy for it is an action for damages Such an action is an essential characteristic of every true tort. Discussing the nature of a tort Salmond in his work on Law of Torts states a tort is a civil wrong for which the remedy is a common law action for unliquidated damages, and which is not exclusively the breach of a contract or the breach of a trust or other merely equitable obligation. Trespass to land, committing of private nuisance are all civil wrongs. Wrongful disturbance of an easement or other servitude appurtenant to land is a private nuisance. Suit for damages for such wrongs are clearly action on tortious liabilities. 4. It might be noted that in ancient England the writs that remedied the injuries which in modern time are called torts were principally the writ of trespass and the writ of trespass on the case or 'case'. "Trespass in common parlance now signifies unauthorised entry on another person's land, but in law it has a wider signification. The writ of trespass lay for injuries to land or to goods, or to the person. But it was limited to injuries which were direct and immediate such as those sustained by a person struck by a log which is thrown into the highway. It did not extend to indirect or consequential injuries, such as those sustained by a person who stumbled over the log while it lay in the highway. But it was limited to injuries which were direct and immediate such as those sustained by a person struck by a log which is thrown into the highway. It did not extend to indirect or consequential injuries, such as those sustained by a person who stumbled over the log while it lay in the highway. But these indirect injuries came to be remediable through the action on the case. These two classes of action, "trespass" and "case" existed side by side for centuries and to them we owe most of our law of tort. There were, however, definite distinctions between these two forms of action and until the nineteenth century it was vital for a plaintiff to choose correctly between them. Only after the reforms of that century had broken up the cast-iron moulds of procedure did it cease to be necessary "to canvass the niceties of the old forms of action. Remedies now depend upon the substance of the right, not on whether they can be fitted into a particular framework." Nevertheless a knowledge of the forms of action is still necessary for the understanding of the old authorities and of the classification of much of the modern law." (See Winfield on Tort, 8th Edition, Pages 14 & 15). 5. When one analyses the case in question. one finds that the reliefs asked for are on the basis of injuries to the plaintiff on account of nuisance and trespass to land committed by the defendants. Trespass to land is unjustifiable interference with possession of land which is obviously a civil wrong and hence results in tortious liability. Though nuisance is incapable of exact definition as Winfield points out for the purpose of the law of tort it may be described as unlawful interference with a person's use or enjoyment of land, or of some right over, or in connection with it. (Adopted by Scott L. J, in Read v. Lyons & Co.Ltd. (1945) K. B. 216 at 236; by Lord Goddard C. J. in Howard v. Walker (1947) 2 All E. R.197 at 199; and by Evershed J. in Newcastle-wider-Lyme Corporation v, Wolstanton Ltd. (1947) Ch. 92 at 107.). Thus nuisance is also a civil wrong giving rise to liability on the person who commits it. 6. 92 at 107.). Thus nuisance is also a civil wrong giving rise to liability on the person who commits it. 6. In the light of the fact that the suit is based on tortious liability, there is no need to stay it under Act 30 of 1975. The order of the court below is set aside. The court below will proceed to try the suit in accordance with law. The Civil Revision Petition is disposed of as above. I make no order as to costs. Allowed.