Simplified: The original Section 89, which dealt with arbitration proceedings within the framework of the CPC, was repealed by the Arbitration Act, 1940.
Note: A new Section 89 (relating to Settlement of disputes outside the Court, including arbitration, mediation, conciliation, etc.) was inserted by the CPC (Amendment) Act, 1999, which came into effect later (in 2002). The original section referenced in the 1908 Act provided here is the repealed one.
Special case
Section 90: Power to state case for opinion of Court
Simplified: If people involved in a potential dispute agree in writing to state a question (of fact or law) as a “special case” for the court’s opinion, the court shall try and determine that specific question according to the prescribed procedure (detailed in Order XXXVI).
Purpose: Allows parties who agree on the facts but differ on the legal outcome, or agree on the legal principle but differ on a key factual question, to get a binding court decision on that specific point without undergoing a full, adversarial trial on all aspects. They usually agree beforehand on the consequences of the court’s finding (e.g., payment of money, delivery of property).
Example: A buyer and seller of goods agree on all facts regarding a contract and delivery, but disagree on the legal interpretation of a specific clause regarding defects. They can jointly prepare a written statement outlining the agreed facts and the specific legal question about the clause’s interpretation. They file this “special case” with the court. The court hears arguments only on that legal question and gives its opinion, which then determines the outcome based on the parties’ prior agreement.
Section 91: Public nuisances and other wrongful acts affecting the public
Simplified: This section outlines who can file a lawsuit regarding a “public nuisance” or other wrongful act that affects (or is likely to affect) the general public.
(1) Who Can Sue: A suit for a declaration, injunction, or other appropriate relief related to a public nuisance or wrongful act affecting the public can be filed by:
(a) The Advocate General: The state’s chief legal officer can initiate the suit directly.
(b) Two or more persons with Court’s Leave: Two or more individuals can file the suit, even if they haven’t suffered any special damage different from the general public, but only after obtaining the permission (leave) of the Court.
(2) Saving of Other Rights: This section does not limit or affect any pre-existing right to sue that might exist independently (e.g., a person who has suffered special damage might still be able to sue individually under common law).
Public Nuisance: An act or omission causing common injury, danger, or annoyance to the public or people in the vicinity (e.g., blocking a public road, pollution affecting a neighborhood).
Example: A factory is polluting a river, affecting the water supply for an entire village. The Advocate General can file a suit to stop the pollution (Sec 91(1)(a)). Alternatively, two or more villagers, even if their personal damage is the same as everyone else’s, can apply to the court for permission to file a suit seeking an injunction against the factory (Sec 91(1)(b)). If one specific farmer downstream suffers unique crop damage in addition to the general water problem, they might potentially sue individually, relying on their separate right mentioned in Sec 91(2).
Section 92: Public charities
Simplified: This section deals with lawsuits concerning trusts created for public purposes of a charitable or religious nature.
(1) When a Suit Can Be Filed: A suit can be filed in cases of:
An alleged breach of such a public trust.
Situations where the court’s direction is needed for the administration of the trust.
Who Can File:
The Advocate-General.
Two or more persons having an interest in the trust, after obtaining the leave (permission) of the Court.
Where to File:
In the principal Civil Court of original jurisdiction (usually the District Court).
Or in any other court empowered by the State Government.
The court must be within the local limits where the whole or part of the trust’s subject-matter (e.g., property) is located.
Types of Relief Sought (What the suit can ask for):
(a) Removing a trustee.
(b) Appointing a new trustee.
(c) Vesting (transferring legal ownership of) trust property in a trustee.
(cc) Directing a removed trustee (or someone who ceased to be a trustee) to hand over trust property. (Added 1976).
(d) Directing accounts and inquiries.
(e) Declaring how trust property/income should be allocated to specific trust objects.
(f) Authorizing the lease, sale, mortgage, or exchange of trust property.
(g) Settling a scheme for the trust’s administration.
(h) Granting any other necessary relief.
State Amendment (Uttar Pradesh): Adds clause (bb) allowing a suit for delivery of possession of trust property against a person who has ceased to be a trustee or has been removed.
(2) Exclusivity: Except as provided by specific laws like the Religious Endowments Act, 1863, no suit claiming the reliefs mentioned in sub-section (1) for such public trusts can be filed except according to the procedure in sub-section (1) (i.e., by the Advocate-General or by two or more interested persons with court’s leave). This prevents frivolous or numerous suits by individuals.
(3) Cy-près Doctrine (Applying funds to similar purpose): (Added 1976) The Court can alter the original purposes of a public charitable/religious trust and allow its property/income to be applied cy-près (meaning, to a similar charitable purpose) under certain circumstances, namely:
(a) If the original purposes are fulfilled, cannot be carried out (at all or as directed), or cannot be carried out in the spirit of the trust.
(b) If the original purposes use only part of the available property.
(c) If the trust property combined with other property for similar purposes could be used more effectively for another related purpose, respecting the original spirit.
(d) If the original purposes referred to an area that has ceased to be a relevant unit.
(e) If the original purposes have become unlawful, impractical, useless/harmful, no longer legally charitable, or otherwise unsuitable, respecting the original spirit.
Example: Residents of a town notice that the trustee of an old public temple trust is misusing funds. Two interested devotees can apply to the District Court for leave under Sec 92. If leave is granted, they can file a suit asking the court to remove the trustee, appoint a new one, order an audit (accounts and inquiries), and settle a new scheme for managing the temple (Sec 92(1)). They cannot simply file the suit without the court’s prior permission. If an old trust set up to provide bullock carts for farmers becomes obsolete due to mechanization, the court could apply the funds cy-près to provide tractors or agricultural training under Sec 92(3).
Section 93: Exercise of powers of Advocate-General outside presidency-towns
Simplified: The powers given to the Advocate-General under Sections 91 (public nuisance) and 92 (public charities) can also be exercised outside the presidency-towns (historical major cities like Kolkata, Mumbai, Chennai) by:
The Collector (District Magistrate/Head Revenue Officer), OR
Any other officer appointed by the State Government for this purpose.
Condition: This can only be done with the previous sanction (approval) of the State Government.
Example: In a district town (not a presidency town), if there’s a need to file a suit regarding mismanagement of a local public trust, and the Advocate General is unable or unavailable to act, the State Government can sanction the District Collector to file the suit under Section 92.
