M. F. SALDANHA, J. ( 1 ) HEARD the learned Advocate for the petitioner as also the learned Advocate who represents the respondents counsel. ( 2 ) THIS civil revision petition is directed against the Order passed by the trial court in o. s. No. 234 of 1991. Three persons, viz. , plaintiff 1 the father, plaintiff 2 the son and plaintiff 3 the neighbour, filed a suit in the court of principal munsiff at puttur against the town municipal council, puttur and others for certain reliefs which essentially became necessary because the plaintiffs contended that dead animals and even human dead bodies were being dumped in a plot that was closeby to where the plaintiffs reside and that the situation had become unbearable to them. An application under Order 1, Rule 8, C. P. C. was filed before the trial court by plaintiff 2 on the ground that he should be permitted to represent the plaintiffs in the proceedings. The application was resisted by the respondents counsel on all sorts of grounds and very involved legal issues were canvassed including the fact that the provisions of section 91 of the Code of Civil Procedure would apply. The trial court has examined all these contentions and has also reproduced several of the decisions that were cited before it and the result of this exercise was that the application filed by the 2nd plaintiff was rejected. One of the defences was that since Section 91 uses the word "two or more persons" and since the application was filed by one person, it was not maintainable. It is against this Order that the present civil revision petition has been directed. ( 3 ) PETITIONER's learned Advocate has seriously assailed not only the correctness, but also the propriety of the Order in question. It is against this Order that the present civil revision petition has been directed. ( 3 ) PETITIONER's learned Advocate has seriously assailed not only the correctness, but also the propriety of the Order in question. He has relied on certain decisions which I need not reproduce in support of his contention, as it is open to any litigant to apply under Order 1, Rule 8, C. P. C. and that the learned trial judge was in error in having invoked the provisions of Section 91, C. P. C. secondly, he has submitted that when a citizen has approached the court in a serious situation such as this, it is incumbent on the part of the court to examine the grievance at the earliest point of time and ensure that requisite reliefs are granted and that no amount of legal technicalities should be permitted to delay or defeat such a process. ( 4 ) THE respondent's learned Advocate submitted that the Order is perfectly tenable in law. It is her contention that Section 91 of the C. P. C. has been specifically enacted to deal with the cases of alleged public nuisance and since this is what the petitioners have alleged, they are bound by the provisions of that section. It is pointed to me that the application was neither routed through the Advocate general nor was prior leave of the court sought for instituting the proceedings and that even if the present application was for purpose of obtaining leave, then the requirement of law is that two or more persons must be parties to it. Learned advocate submitted that there is a specific reason for this enactment insofar as it is not meant to cater to individual grievances, but it is really meant to take care of instances of public nuisance where several citizens are affected. The further submission was that in this background, the learned trial judge was fully justified in having refused to grant leave. ( 5 ) IT is unnecessary for me to do any detailed evaluation of the submissions canvassed. Section 91, C. P. C. undoubtedly prescribes the procedure to be followed therein, but this does not mean that the provisions of sub-section (2) of Section 91 are to be overlooked insofar as it is open to a citizen to independently agitate a right. Section 91, C. P. C. undoubtedly prescribes the procedure to be followed therein, but this does not mean that the provisions of sub-section (2) of Section 91 are to be overlooked insofar as it is open to a citizen to independently agitate a right. In the present instance, the suit will have to be treated as one filed by three citizens and if one of them has applied for leave to conduct the suit or prosecute on behalf of the other plaintiffs, the application is more than fully justified. It is totally unnecessary to go into other areas because it is quite elementary that plaintiff 2 is invested with rights as a citizen which he is entitled to agitate on his behalf and on behalf of others. The rejection of the application was, therefore, erroneous and will have to be set aside. ( 6 ) BEFORE parting with this petition I need observe that if the averments in the plaint are true, that it represents a most distressing state of affairs. Public bodies are expected to function with a high degree of responsibility and in the present instance the dumping of dead bodies of whatever kind is not only a source of nuisance, but a very serious health hazard. This ought not to have been done in the proximity of any human habitation and where the plaintiffs complained about it, it was very necessary that appropriate corrective steps ought to have been taken. The trial court will bear these aspects of the case in mind, as the reliefs in a situation of this type, if not granted expeditiously, will virtually become illusory. It is unfortunate that because of the present interdispute that the suit filed in the year 1991 is obviously still stagnating on the file of the trial court. accordingly, the Order of the trial court dated 10-9-1992 is set aside. La. Iii is allowed. The trial court is directed to take up the matter on an expedited basis and dispose of it according to law. No Order as to costs. --- *** --- .