Q.

Briefly state with the help of case laws and related provisions
a. What is Interpleader Suit? Who all can file it under CPC.
b. Provisions related to Public Nuisance. (2016)
~Zeeshan Ahmad Abbasi

(a.)
Section 88 and Order 35 of the CPC deals with the provisions of ‘Interpleader
suit’.
In an ordinary suit, whenever a suit is filed by plaintiff against defendant or
against one or more defendants, then he claims something for themselves. In such
a case. The court tries to determine the rights and liabilities of the parties and tries
to solve the dispute between the parties. This is a procedure of an ordinary suit.
However, the CPC,1908, also provides the provision of filing a special suit i.e,
‘Interpleader suit’ in which the plaintiff has no interest in the subject matter of the
suit. He files the suit against defendants so that their rights may be determined by
the court.

According to the provisions of CPC, 1908, the following essentials must be

satisfied before an interpleader suit is instituted-

1. There must be some debt, sum of money or other property movable or

immovable in dispute;

2. Two or more persons must be claiming it adversely to one another;

3. The person from whom such debt, money or property is claimed must not be
claiming interest therein other than the charges and costs and he must be ready
and willing to pay or deliver it to the rightful claimant; and

4. There must be no suit pending wherein the rights of rival claimants can be
properly adjudicated.

According to Section 88, if a person has a debts, property whether movable or

immovable or some of money belonging to another person and two or more other
persons claim that the property, money or thing belongs to them and the former
person is also ready to pay or deliver such things to the rightful claimant but he
do not know that to whom such money should be paid or property should be
delivered then such a case he can file an interpleader suit.

The person can state in the suit that he is ready to pay or deliver the property to
the rightful claimant and he has no interest in the property except for the charges
or cost which has been paid by him for maintaining that thing, then in such a case,
if a person files an interpleader suit, then the court determine that who is the
rightful claimant and to whom property should be delivered. The court after
determining the rights and liabilities of the claimants, orders the person who has
filed an interpleader suit to deliver such property to a particular claimant and
claim indemnity for himself from that claimant.

The exception to the above is, the if any suit has already been instituted by any
of the party and in that all the rights can be properly determined by the court, in
such a case an interpleader suit cannot be filed.

According to Order 35 Rule 2 of CPC, if the thing regarding which the

interpleader suit has been filed by the plaintiff is capable of being paid into the
court or placed in the custody of court then in such a case the court may order the
plaintiff to give the custody of that thing to the court.

Moreover, according to Order 35 Rule 4, the court may at the time of first
hearing discharge the plaintiff from all the liabilities and award him with the cost
and dismiss him from the suit. If the court thinks that it is in the interest of justice
that all the parties must sustain till the disposal of suit then in such a case court
will not dismiss the plaintiff from the suit and the court will frame the issues and
try the suit to determine the rights and liabilities of the claimants. In this situation,
court has power to make any one of the defendants as plaintiff besides the original
plaintiff who has filed the suit.
Order 35 Rule 5 states that the agent has no right to file an interpleader suit
against his principal and tenant has no right to file an interpleader suit against his
landlord. According to this rule, if any third person claims that the thing which is
in the possession of agent on behalf of his principal belongs to him or claims that
the property in which the tenant resides belongs to him then in such a case, tenant
or agent cannot file an interpleader suit against his landlord or principal and that
third person cannot plead before the court that their dispute should be solved so
as to enable him to provide the possession of that thing against which the
interpleader suit has been filed to the rightful claimant.

RELEVANT CASE LAWS

1. Groundnut Extractions Export Development Assn. v. State Bank of

India

The Hon'ble court held that an interpleader suit is a suit in which the real dispute
is not between a plaintiff and a defendant but between the defendants who
interplead against each other, unlike in an grdinary suit. In a majority of cases,
there is a dispute between a plaintiff and a defendant. In an interpleader suit, the
plaintiff is not really interested in the subject matter of the suit.

2. National Insurance Co. Ltd. V. Dhirendra Nath (Cal 1938)

The Hon'ble court held that a person who has no interest in any debt, sum of
money or other property, movable or immovable, except the charges or costs and
is ready to pay or deliver the property to the rightful claimant may file an
interpleader suit.

3. Jagganath v. Tulka Hera

The Hon'ble court held that in order to decide whether a suit is in the nature of
an interpleader suit, the court must have regard to all the prayers in the plaint. A
suit does not become an interpleader suit merely because the plaintiff requires the
 defendants to interplead with each other as regards one of the
prayers in the plaint.

(b.)

Section 91 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908, provides for filing a suit in the
case of public nuisance or wrongful act affecting the public at large. Nuisance is
nothing but an act or omission which causes common injury, danger or anions to
the public or the people in general to their enjoyment in respect of their properties.

The expression "Public Nuisance" has not been defined in the civil procedure
code. The word 'Nuisance' is derived from the French word 'nuire' and the Latin
word 'nocere' which means to do hurt or to annoy. Section 91 CPC needs to be
read along with Section 268 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) where Public
Nuisance has been termed as a Criminal Offence. It means any illegal act or
omission causing injury, obstruction, danger or annoyance to Public in general or
public at Large.

Who may sue?

A suit may be instituted by the following persons, relating to a public nuisance

or other wrongful act;

1. By Advocate General;

2. By two or more persons with the leave of the court; or

3. By any private person if he has sustained special damage.

There are some remedies which are available against public nuisance as follows:-

1. A person committing a public nuisance may be punished under section 290 of

the Indian Penal Code;
2. Magistrates may remove public nuisance in certain case circumstances by
exercising summary power under section 133 and 143 CRPC;
3. A suit can be instituted for the declaration, injunction or other appropriate relief
without proof of separation damage under section 91(1) CPC.
4. A suit may also be filed by a private individual, where he has sustained special
damages under section 91 (1) CPC.
An appeal lies against an order refusing to grant leave to file a suit for public
nuisance or other wrongful act affecting the public, section 104 CPC. Whether or
not a particular act or omission would amount to public nuisance depends on the
fact and circumstances of each case.

RELEVANT CASE LAW

1. Municipal Council, Ratlam v. Vardichan
The Supreme Court observed that a public nuisance is a challenge to the social
justice component of the Rule of Law. In case of public nuisance it is the power
coupled with duty of the government or local authority to take appropriate steps
to remove it.