JUDGMENT Deoki Nandan, J. -This is a defendants second appeal in a suit for injunction to restore the pathway passing by the side of the brick-kiln of the parties, to its original condition before the digging of the earth made therefrom by the defendant. 2. The trial court dismissed the suit on the finding that it was not maintainable although the defendant had dug earth from the rasta in suit towards its western side, as is apparent from, the Amins map (57-C). According to the trial court the remaining width of the rasta was such that plaintiffs trucks could still pass through the same and the inconvenience experienced by the plaintiff in carrying his trucks and carts through the rasta when another truck or cart was approaching from the opposite direction did not result in any special damage to him. 3. The lower appellate court allowed the appeal holding that the Rasta was more in the nature of a village pathway than a public highway and proof of special damage was not necessary. 4. The learned counsel for the appellant urged that the finding of the trial court to the effect that the plaintiff did not suffer any special damage by the slight narrowing down of the rasta in suit at certain places, has not been set'" aside by the lower appellate court and in view of the decision of Oudh Chief Court in Sita Ram v. Puttu Lal AIR 1937 Oudh 458 and other similar cases on the point, the plaintiff s suit could not be said to be maintainable and the view of the lower appellate court to the contrary is erroneous in law. 5. Even assuming that it is necessary for the plaintiff to prove special damage in order to maintain the suit for an injunction to remove an obstruction from the public pathway, it is necessary tor him to prove some damage, specially to himself. It is not the law that the plaintiff must prove that some damage or loss has actually been occasioned to him by the obstruction. An imminent or a real threat of damage or loss would be sufficient to maintain an action of this kind. It is not the law that the plaintiff must prove that some damage or loss has actually been occasioned to him by the obstruction. An imminent or a real threat of damage or loss would be sufficient to maintain an action of this kind. The narrowing down of a village rasta by digging of earth from the fringes, to begin with, is in due course, if not prevented in good time bound to narrow-down the rasta more and more after every rainy season. It has been found by the trial court that some inconvenience was being caused to the plaintiff even by the extent to which the rasta had already been narrowed down. However, the question is whether the damage complained of by the plaintiff was special damage, such as to have given him a cause of action for the present suit. 6. Special damage does not mean some extraordinary or irreparable damage. In the context special damage means, damage [specially to the plaintiff as distinguished from the members of the general public A mere pedestrian or a person merely passing on a vehicle once in a whiles through a public road may not have the necessary cause of action for removal of an obstruction on the road. But a person owning property on the road-side which he must pass and repass in order to get to his property or which is one of the usual ways through which he gets to his property does suffer damage by the narrowing down of that road by an obstruction placed at some place from where he often passes to and from his property. 7. In the present case, the plaintiff did own property adjacent to that of the defendant by the side of the pathway in question. In my opinion, the narrowing down of the rasta by the defendant did amount to special damage vis-a-vis, the plaintiff, and the latter certainly had a right,to sue. The appeal fails and is dismissed with costs.