JUDGMENT M.L. Singhal, J. (Oral) - It is a suit for mandatory injunction filed by Hari Singh and Mukhtiar Singh, plaintiffs (respondents herein) against Gurdial Singh, defendant (petitioner herein) directing the latter to remove the construction raised in public street bearing Khewat No. 671, Khatoni No. 1659, comprised in Khasra No. 1512 measuring 0 Kanal 9 marlas. It is alleged in the plaint that this street is 3 karms in width and 28 karms in length, which has been in use by the plaintiffs and the general public since times immemorial. It is a public street and thoroughfare. Plaintiffs are entitled to use every inch of this street for passing through this street. They are entitled to have all sort of encroachments removed so far as this street is concerned. House of the defendant-petitioner adjoins the street. Defendant raised construction and encroached upon some portion of this street, which he had no right to do, it being a public street meant to be used by every one without any obstruction. 2. Defendant contested the suit. 3. On the pleadings of the parties issues were framed. 4. Civil Judge (Jr. Division), Faridkot decreed the suit for mandatory injunction directing the defendant to remove the construction which he has raised obstructing this street and to restore it to its original condition in which it was when he had not encroached upon it. 5. Defendant went in appeal. In appeal, he made an application for amendment of the written statement. By way of amendment, he sought to plead that suit is bad having been filed by the plaintiffs without the leave of the Court as envisaged in Section 91 CPC; they having not alleged any special nuisance or injury to them. 6. Defendants prayer for amendment was refused by the District Judge vide impugned order dated 7.9.1999. 7. It is this order which has been challenged through this revision before this Court. In my opinion, the proposed amendment should have been allowed to the defendant-petitioner. In the case of public nuisance, suit can be instituted by the Advocate General or with the leave of the Court by two or more persons. If suit for removal of public nuisance is to be instituted without the leave of the Court by any person, he has to allege special damage or nuisance. In the case of public nuisance, suit can be instituted by the Advocate General or with the leave of the Court by two or more persons. If suit for removal of public nuisance is to be instituted without the leave of the Court by any person, he has to allege special damage or nuisance. Section 91 of the CPC lays down as under :- "Public nuisances and other wrongful acts affect the public - (1) In the case of a public nuisance or other wrongful act affecting, or likely to affect, the public, a suit for declaration and injunction or for such other relief as may be appropriate in the circumstances of the case, may be instituted - (a) by the Advocate-General, or (b) with the leave of the Court, by two or more persons, even though no special damage has been caused to such persons by reason of such public nuisance or other wrongful act. (2) Nothing in this section shall be deemed to limit or otherwise affect any right of suit which may exist independently of its provision. 8. Looking to the provisions of Section 91 CPC, in my opinion, defendant should have been allowed to incorporate the proposed amendment in the written statement. So this revision is allowed and the impugned order is set aside on payment of Rs. 500/- as costs and the proposed amendment is allowed to be effected. Revision allowed.