2025:UHC:6921 SL. No. Date Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS WPMS/2097/2025 Hon’ble Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J 1. Mr. Nagesh Aggarwal, learned counsel for the petitioners. 2. Petitioners have challenged order dated 25.09.2024 passed by 2nd Civil Judge, Roorkee, District Haridwar in Miscellaneous Case No 40 of 2009, whereby leave of court, for instituting suit under Section 91 CPC, was granted. Petitioners have also challenged the judgment rendered by 1st Additional District Judge, Roorkee, District Haridwar in Civil Revision No. 18 of 2024, whereby their revision petition, challenging trial court’s order dated 25.09.2024, was dismissed. 3. Learned 2nd Civil Judge, Roorkee, granted leave for instituting suit by holding that because of a dispute regarding a passage, which leads to a public well, it is a fit case for grant of leave under Section 91(1)(b) CPC, as both parties are staking claim over the passage. 4. Learned Revisional Court affirmed the order passed by learned trial court. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that as a compromise was entered into between the persons, who sought leave under Section 91 CPC, and the petitioners, therefore, learned trial court erred in granting leave by overlooking the compromise. 2025:UHC:6921 6. The impugned orders, however, are silent regarding the compromise, if any, arrived at between the parties, therefore, it can be safely inferred that the factum of compromise was not brought into the notice of learned trial court. 7. Even otherwise also, in a suit, filed under Section 91 CPC, which deals with public nuisances and other wrongful acts affecting the public, compromise can be entered into by the parties, however, this right is not unqualified and is subject to certain conditions. Compromise in such suits, especially those, filed by two or more individuals with court permission, are considered representative suit and require court’s approval under Order 23 Rule 3B CPC. The Court must ensure that the compromise serves public interest, not just the interest of the individual involved. Section 91 CPC protects public right, therefore, any compromise must not violate public policy, morality or statutory law. The Court can reject a settlement, if it is not in the best interest of the public. Court’s approval under Order 23 Rule 3B CPC is essential to ensure that the compromise is lawful and upholds the public interest objectives of Section 91 CPC. The Court will consider the specific details of the case, including the nature of the public nuisance or wrongful act and its effect on the public, while passing any order on the compromise. 8. Before the trial court, petitioners contended that the land, which respondents claimed to be a passage, is the private property of the petitioners and it was never used as public passage. Learned trial court called a report from Court Amin and as per the said report, 2025:UHC:6921 there was 10 feet wide & 81 feet long passage, which is used by persons residing in the locality. 9. Thus, the order passed by learned trial court, whereby leave to institute suit was granted, cannot be faulted. Any interference with the judgments and orders impugned in this writ petition would thus be unwarranted. 10. Accordingly, the writ petition fails and is dismissed. (Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J) 07.08.2025 Aswal NITI RAJ SINGH ASWAL Digitally signed by NITI RAJ SINGH ASWAL DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=eacc6757ee7881e933ff8934f07477005aa85f9802a3a08b08d1369512 ea30f3, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=44EB54CBF00B7698CB6F10C2CE3D26F5C22DACF4F4610C1FE 58A58531726FBB0, cn=NITI RAJ SINGH ASWAL Date: 2025.08.19 05:02:20 -07'00' 2025:UHC:6921