Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 18

DAMODARAM SANJIVAYYA NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY

CONTENTS
ABBREVATIONS ....................................................................................................................................... 2

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES ........................................................................................................................... 3

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION ................................................................................................................. 4

STATEMENT OF FACTS ............................................................................................................................. 5

ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION ................................................................................................................... 6

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS .................................................................................................................... 7

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED......................................................................................................................... 8

I. WHETHER THE COURT HAS JURISDICTION ............................................................................................ 8

(a)Whether the District Court of Andhra Pradesh has the jurisdiction to adjudicate the suit. ....... 8

(b)Whether the suit filed against Mr. Jidh Kumar is maintainable under the jurisdiction of Section 91 of the
Code of Civil Procedure,1908. .................................................................................................................. 8

II.WHETHER JIDH KUMAR’S DOGS AMOUNTED TO NUISANCE OR CAUSED ANY VIOLATION OF THE RIGHTS
OF OTHER RESIDENTS IN THE LOCALITY? ............................................................................................... 12

III.WHETHER JIDH KUMAR’S ACTIONS AMOUNT TO NEGLIGIENCE ......................................................... 15

IV.WHETHER THE RWA’S ORDERS OR NOTICES SENT TO JIDH KUMAR ARE BINDING ON HIM................. 16

PRAYER ................................................................................................................................................. 18

1
MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER
DAMODARAM SANJIVAYYA NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY

ABBREVATIONS
& And

AWB Animal Welfare board

Ed. Edition

Hon’ble Honourable

RWA Residents Welfare Association

SCC Supreme court case

V. VERSES

2
MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER
DAMODARAM SANJIVAYYA NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

BOOKS:
1. Rathanlal & Dhirajlal, Law of torts, 26th Edition, 2010, Justice G.P Singh.
2. Winfield & Jolowicz, TORT, 17th edition, WVH Rogers.
3. M P Jain, The code of civil procedure, 3rd edition, 2014.
4. C K Takwani, Civil procedure, 6th edition, 2011.

STATUTES AND LEGISLATIONS:


1. Code of civil procedure, 1908

WEBSITES:
1. www.scconline.com
2. www.heinonline.org
CASES
1. D.Vikram vs Dr.Jayavarthavavelu, Crl. R.C.No.1195 of 2009

2. Jigeesha Thakore v Dilip Sumanlal Shah and Others, SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION(CIVIL)
Diary No(s).20859/2018
3. Milkmen Colony Vikas Samiti v. State of Rajasthan and Others, (2007) 2 SCC 413
4. Pallaku v. J.M.M.M. Sulthan Ibrahim, S.A. no. 870 of 2004 and C.M.P no. 6535 of 2004.
5. Perumal Naicker v. Rathima Naicker and Jayarama Naicker,
6. Rapier v. London Tramways Co, (1893) 2 Ch. 588

3
MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER
DAMODARAM SANJIVAYYA NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

The Counsel on behalf of the petitioner approached the Honorable District Court of Andhra
Pradesh under Section 91 of The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

S.91. (1) In the case of a public nuisance or other wrongful act affecting, the public, a suit for a
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 a right of suit which may
exist independently of its provisions.

4
MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER
DAMODARAM SANJIVAYYA NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY

STATEMENT OF FACTS

I. Jidh Kumar, a software engineer turned author, was known for his immense love for
animals. He believed that the sole purpose of his life was to nurse the disabled animals. He
took great interest in spreading awareness about animals through his YouTube channel and
various social media challenges. In the year 2015, he bought a two bedroom flat in the
township of the Jungpura Castle and moved into it with his three pet dogs. The primary
reason he bought this flat was because his dogs get a lot of space to run, explore and enjoy
the clean environment.

II. By December 2016, he had adopted 16 dogs that were taken out for a walk every morning.
During this process, all the dogs used to answer nature’s calls during that walk in the park.
In July 2017, based on a few complaints from neighbors, the Residents’ Welfare
Association of Jungpura Township formally asked Jidh Kumar to reduce the number of
dogs by offering them for adoption and also get all his dogs vaccinated for the safety of the
residents. He declined meanwhile, due to the construction of a new block of apartments,
the size of the park reduced to one quarter of its size. There were instances of dog bites
also.

III. In January 2018, elections were held and the newly elected members resolved that the
Township should be clean and the residents should be allowed to enjoy the premises to the
fullest possible extent. In March 2018, a notice was sent to Jidh Kumar based on the
complaints relating to the noise that dogs make and the disturbance caused.

IV. By June 2018,it was found that the park was stinking and generally filled with animal
excreta, thus leaving no clean space for the children to play. Jidh Kumar was asked by the
Association to desist using the park as an area for his dogs to excrete. He claimed that the
association could not dictate terms to him. The state of things continue to remain the same
even after a month. This makes the Association to file a suit against Jidh Kumar.

5
MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER
DAMODARAM SANJIVAYYA NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY

ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION

I. (a) WHETHER THE DISTRICT COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH HAS THE


POWER TO ADJUDICATE THE SUIT…………………………………………….
(b)WHETHER THE SUIT FILED AGAINST MR.JIDH KUMAR IS MAINTAINBLE
UNDER SECTION 91 OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908……………

II. WHETHER THE JIDH KUMAR’S DOGS AMOUNTED TO NUISANCE OR


CAUSED ANY VIOLATION OF THE RIGHTS OF OTHER RESIDENTS IN THE
LOCALITY………………………………………………………………………….

III.WHETHER JIDH KUMAR’S ACTIONS AMOUNT TO NEGLIGIENCE….....

IV.WHETHER THE RWA’S ORDERS OR NOTICES SENT TO JIDH KUMAR ARE


BINDING ON HIM

6
MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER
DAMODARAM SANJIVAYYA NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

1) WHETHER THE COURT HAS JURISDICTION.


a) Whether the District Court of Andhra Pradesh has the jurisdiction to adjudicate
the suit.
b) Whether the suit filed against Mr. Jidh Kumar is maintainable under the jurisdiction
of Section 91 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.
The court has the jurisdiction under section 91 of code if civil procedure, 1908. The facts of the
case primarily deal with public nuisance and this section rightly deals with the issue of public
nuisance.
2) WHETHER JIDH KUMAR’S DOGS AMOUNTED TO NUISANCE OR CAUSED ANY
VIOLATION OF THE RIGHTS OF OTHER RESIDENTS IN THE LOCALITY?
The fact sheet clearly states that Jidh Kumar’s dogs caused public nuisance in the locality. The
park in the locality was filled with human excreta and unbearable stench, thus violating the
right of the children to play. The 16 dogs which stayed in the two bedroom flat used bark at
night times disturbing the children who were studying. There were instances of dog bites too.t
3) WHETHER JIDH KUMAR’S ACTIONS AMOUNT TO NEGLIGIENCE
Jidh Kumar will be liable for negligence due to the lack of due care that was exercised by the
individual. It is stated that the respondent failed to vaccinate the dogs and that there was no
proper area to dispose excreta so that it would not cause a problem to the public. Whereby Jidh
Kumar is liable of negligence

4) WHETHER THE RWA’S ORDERS OR NOTICES SENT TO JIDH KUMAR ARE


BINDING ON HIM
The resident welfare associations are voluntary organisations, consisting of members of from
the same community. This is to make sure the greater good of the society is served. Though
the rules imposed by the RWA’s are not binding, it is advised that the rules are followed as
they work only towards the betterment of the society, provided they are reasonable.

7
MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER
DAMODARAM SANJIVAYYA NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED
In regards to the jurisdiction of Hon’ble Court:

I. WHETHER THE COURT HAS JURISDICTION

(a)Whether the District Court of Andhra Pradesh has the jurisdiction to adjudicate
the suit.

(b)Whether the suit filed against Mr. Jidh Kumar is maintainable under the jurisdiction of
Section 91 of the Code of Civil Procedure,1908.

1. Suit is defined as a proceeding in a court of law in which a plaintiff demands the recovery of
a right or the redress of a wrong. 1The words ‘public nuisance’ have not been defined in the
Code. Under Section 3(48) of the General Clauses Act, 1897, it is defined as an act or illegal
omission which causes any common injury, danger or annoyance to the people in general who
dwell or occupy property in the vicinity, or which must necessarily cause injury, obstruction,
danger or annoyance to persons who may have occasion to use any public right. 2
2. By the amending Act of 1976, this section was amended to the effect that it would be enough
if the leave of the Court is obtained by such two or more persons. The provisions of the sub-
section have also been extended to wrongful acts other than public nuisance which effect the
public.3
3. A private person cannot maintain a suit in respect of a public nuisance, unless he is able to
show that he suffered special damage thereby .This section provides an exception to that rule
and enacts that such a suit can be maintained even without proof of special damage, provided
leave of the Court is obtained and the other conditions of the section are satisfied. It may be
noted that this section applies in the case of public nuisance only.

1
Merriam Webster’s Dictionary,1254(10th ed.2004).
2
S.268, The Indian Penal Code,1860
3
M.P Jain, The Code of Civil Procedure, 297(3rd ed.2011).
8
MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER
DAMODARAM SANJIVAYYA NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY

4. Under the Civil Law, the following are the remedies available:
a) A suit will lie under this section without proof of any special damage to the plaintiff.
b) A suit will also lie at the instance of private individual where he has suffered special
damage by reasons of the nuisance as distinguished from the damage suffered by him
in common with other persons affected by the nuisance.
5. This particular Section is under Order 1 and Rule 8 of the C.P.C.As a general rule, all persons
interested in a suit ought to be joined as parties to it, so that the matters involved therein may
be finally adjudicated upon and fresh litigations over the same matters may be avoided. Rule
8 is an exception to this general principle. It provides that when there are a number of people
similarly interested in a suit, one or more of them can, with the permission of the court or
upon the direction from the court, sue or be sued on behalf of themselves and others. The
plaintiff in a representative suit need not obtain the previous consent of the persons whom he
seeks to represent.
6. A “representative suit” may be defined as under: “A representative suit is a suit filed by or
against one or more persons on behalf of themselves and others having the same interest in
the suit. Order 1 Rule 8 of the code has been framed in order to save time and expense, to
ensure a single comprehensive trial of question in which numerous persons are interested and
to avoid harassment to parties by a multiplicity of suits. Order 1 Rule 8 is merely an enabling
provision.
7. Conditions:
For the rule to apply,the following conditions must exist:
a) The parties must be numerous;
b) They must have the same interest in the suit;
c) The permission must have been granted or direction must have been given by the court; and
d) Notice must have been issued to the parties whom it is proposed to represent in the suit.
8. In the case Perumal Naicker v. Rathima Naicker and Jayarama Naicker, 4 the defendant
put up a construction in a larger extent surpassing the land he owned. He encroached upon the

4
Appeal no.549 of 1993.
9
MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER
DAMODARAM SANJIVAYYA NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY

excess land which was used a pathway by the general public. The substantive questions of
law that were raised are:
(a) Whether the suit for mandatory injunction for removal of obstruction of public pathway -
a public nuisance - filed in representative capacity is maintainable as per Section 91 C.P.C.?
(b) As claim to use of pathway was not on the basis of any easement or on suffering special
damage, whether the plaintiffs have locus standi in maintaining the suit?
9. So far as the first substantial question of law pertaining to Section 91 of the C.P.C. is
concerned, it deals with "public nuisance" which is the combination of a civil and criminal
characters and no mention need be necessary that under both civil and criminal forums, the
public nuisance could be dealt with for actions and prosecutions.
10. "Nuisance" is an obstruction, risk or injury caused to any person and if the same is caused in a
public place it becomes "public nuisance". Such a wrongful act affecting the general public,
according to Section 91 CPC, could be challenged or testified filing a suit for declaration and
injunction and for such other reliefs by the Advocate General or with the leave of the Court by
two or more persons though no special damage has been caused to such persons by reason of
such public nuisance.
11. However, clause (2) of Section 91 C.P.C. makes it clear that this Section would not limit or
otherwise affect any right of suit which may exist independently of its provisions thereby
meaning that if any individual gets affected by such public nuisance being caused, he or she,
would have the same right to file a suit for declaration and injunction and for mandatory
injunction and therefore since the plaintiffs in the suit being the neighbors, they are personally
affected by the nuisance created by the defendant, which is also bound to affect the general
public from freely making use of the pathway-cum-cart track for reaching important places
such as the school, river and the graveyard and such other places of vital importance and
therefore it cannot be said that no individual will have the right to question the validity of such
a wrongful act committed on the part of persons like defendants particularly in view of the fact
that Section 91 CPC does not create a bar on any individual from resorting to the Court for
relief in such matters and therefore this substantial question of law regarding the capacity of
the plaintiffs to maintain a suit of this character has to be decided only against the appellant
and the same is decided accordingly.

10
MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER
DAMODARAM SANJIVAYYA NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY

12. For the second substantive question of law, the declaration of the Court below as to the
existence of the public pathway is irresistible and that the plaintiffs' have the locus standi to
maintain the suit.
13. In the case Pallaku v. J.M.M.M. Sulthan Ibrahim, 5 the plaintiff files a suit against the
defendant as the defendants encroached the land and their actions amounted to public nuisance,
which included putting up huts in the plaintiff’s area and refusing to remove it. The hut was
set up on the public street leading to the plaintiff’s house. Therefore a suit was filed against the
defendants. Though there were many substantive questions of law raised by the trial court
judge, one of the main questions related to the present area of concern was “Whether an
individual can maintain a suit under section 91 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
14. As per Section 91 of the C.P.C, it is clear that an individual has got every right to sue for special
damages, even when he is aggrieved by public nuisance. A person or a group of people whose
houses abate on the public road can sue without the leave of the Court under Section 91 of the
Civil Procedure Code.

5
S.A. no. 870 of 2004 and C.M.P no. 6535 of 2004.
11
MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER
DAMODARAM SANJIVAYYA NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY

II.WHETHER JIDH KUMAR’S DOGS AMOUNTED TO NUISANCE OR CAUSED


ANY VIOLATION OF THE RIGHTS OF OTHER RESIDENTS IN THE LOCALITY?

15. Nuisance is defined as that which by its use or existence works annoyance or damage to
another.6 It can also be defined as anything done to the hurt or annoyance of the lands,
tenements or hereditaments and not amounting to a trespass. A nuisance maybe caused by
negligence and there may be cases in which the same act or omission will support an action of
either kind, but, generally speaking, these two classes of action are distinct and the evidence
necessary to support them is different. Nuisance is no branch of negligence, and it is no defense
that all reasonable care to prevent it is taken. 7
16. Public Nuisance is an act affecting the public at large, or some considerable portion of it; and
it must interfere with the rights which members of the community might otherwise enjoy. Acts
which seriously interfere with the health, safety, morals have always been considered public
nuisance, e.g. carrying on trades which cause offensive smells, or intolerable noises. They are
dealt with by, or in the name of the state.
17. Public Nuisance can only be the subject of one action, otherwise a party might be ruined by a
million suits. It depends in a great measure upon the number of houses and the concourse of
people in the vicinity. An indictment will fail if the nuisance complained of affects one or a
few individuals. Again, no length of time can legalize a public nuisance, though it may supply
a defense to an action by a private person.
18. Under the common law the elements required for establishing civil liability are:
a. That a defendant performed or carried on an activity; and
b. That an injury or significant threat of injury was caused to the interest of the plaintiff
19. In general, the elements that must be proven for the establishment of a liability in a nuisance
include:
o Unreasonableness on the part of the defendant
o Continuance of acts constituting nuisance for an unreasonable period

6
Merriam Webster’s Dictionary,867(10th ed.2004).
7
Justice G P Singh,Ratanlal & Dhirajlal’s The Law of Torts 621(26th ed.2010).
12
MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER
DAMODARAM SANJIVAYYA NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY

o Causal connection between defendant and nuisance complained of, and


o Existence of injury or threat of damage
20. Now, we will have to find out whether the actions of the dogs amounted to nuisance, thus
violating any of the rights of other residents who lived in the same township. Jidh Kumar’s 16
dogs were taken for a walk every morning and they used to urinate and excrete in the park. He
never vaccinated his despite repeated requests from the association. The barks of the dogs were
also considered to be a disturbance for others in the locality. There were also instances of dog
bites in the township. Eventually the park in the township was filled with animal excreta and
the children were left with no place to play.
21. Article 21 of the constitution talks about the right to life of each and every individual. Each and
every individual have a right to stay in a hygienic, clean and safe environment. In the case,
Milkmen Colony Vikas Samiti v. State of Rajasthan and Others,8 there is sheer nuisance
caused by the animals. The appellant Milkmen Colony Vikas Samiti was an association.
22. The writ petition filed before the High Court, it was averred that the owners of the bovine
animals let their animals go astray. This caused a lot of public nuisance. The petition further
stated that the excreta of these animals were visible all over, even in the corridors of the High
Court. This totally unhygienic, unhealthy and injurious practice was creating considerable
nuisance to the residents. The citizens of the city, bring aggrieved by the said nuisance caused
by the animals filed a petition in public interest in the High Court. The High Court directed that
the milk dairies located in the city to be relocated to alternative sites outside the city.
23. Disposing of the appeals in the terms below, the Supreme Court Held: “Clean surroundings lead
to a healthy body and healthy mind. The menace caused by the animals happened at the cost of
the health and decent living of the residents of the city violating the constitutional rights
enshrined under Article 21 of the constitution.” It was directed that the animals have to be
relocated.

24. In Rapier v. London Tramways Co9., there were a lot of horses being accommodated in stables
a residential area. The court held that if the noise and the smell from stabling for large number

8
(2007) 2 SCC 413
9
(1893) 2 Ch. 588
13
MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER
DAMODARAM SANJIVAYYA NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY

of horses is intolerable in a densely populated residential neighborhood, it is in no defense that


the defendant has used all reasonable care to minimize the annoyance.
25. In the case Jigeesha Thakore v Dilip Sumanlal Shah and Others, 10 the defendant fed pigeons
by placing a tray below her balcony window causing nuisance to the other members of the
society. The pigeon droppings caused a lot of odor and caused discomfort. It also made the
surroundings very filthy. A person cannot use his premises for causing nuisance to his neighbors
or other residents. The Court issued an injunction against the defendants and held that
irreparable loss and comparative hardship would be caused to plaintiffs if the injunction is not
granted.

10
SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION(CIVIL) Diary No(s).20859/2018
14
MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER
DAMODARAM SANJIVAYYA NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY

III.WHETHER JIDH KUMAR’S ACTIONS AMOUNT TO NEGLIGIENCE

26. Negligence is the breach of a duty caused by the omission to do something which a
reasonable man, guided by those considerations which ordinarily regulate the conduct of
human affairs would do, or doing something which a prudent and reasonable would not do.
Actionable negligence consists in the neglect in the use of ordinary care or skill towards a
person to whom the defendant owes the duty of observing ordinary care and skill, by which
neglect the plaintiff has suffered injury to his person or property.
27. According to Winfield, “Negligence as a tort is the breach of a legal duty to take care which
results in damage, undesired by the defendant to the plaintiff.
The definition involves three constituents of negligence:
1. A legal duty to exercise due care on the part of the party complained of towards the
party complaining the former’s conduct within the scope of duty.
2. Breach of the said duty; and
3. Consequential damage
28. The guidelines according to the animal welfare board of India advise the pet owners to
ensure that their pets are not a source of nuisance to others. In doing so, they may, however,
distinguish between reasonable and unreasonable, and lawful and unlawful claims as to
their pets being a source of nuisance.

29. It also states that though barking is a natural form of expression for a dog, incessant barking
can disturb neighbors. Pet owners are advised to make every effort to keep their dogs quiet,
particularly during night hours. In the case, D.Vikram vs Dr.Jayavarthavavelu 11, the
petitioner had 30 dogs staying with him under one roof. These dogs caused a lot a nuisance
due to them barking and howling at late night hours and early morning hours.

11
Crl. R.C.No.1195 of 2009
15
MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER
DAMODARAM SANJIVAYYA NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY

IV.WHETHER THE RWA’S ORDERS OR NOTICES SENT TO JIDH KUMAR ARE


BINDING ON HIM

30. Association is defined as a body of persons associated for some common purpose;
corporation; society; or partnership.12 Resident Welfare Associations (RWAs) are typically
registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 (in every state the Act may have state-
level amendments). They are governed by constitutional documents such as a
Memorandum of Association (yes, societies can have a memorandum of association as
well), which contains their objectives and functions.
31. They are voluntary associations made by residents and they don’t have any statutory
powers. For example, a Resident Welfare Association cannot really impact your right to
hold or exercise rights over the property you own and will have its powers restricted to
the contribution of sums for maintenance, the organization of workshops and cultural
functions etc.
32. As societies, Resident Welfare Associations (RWAs) also pass their own rules and
regulations to define their powers, functions, governance structure, names of dignitaries
etc. We will discussed this in greater detail later on. Since it is a society, RWA is a legal
person and can sue and be sued as well. Taking care of society’s by-laws, addressing any
disputes over management of the colony or maintenance of common areas, etc. is the work
of an RWA.

33. RWA’S work for the society’s greater good. They collectively work keeping in mind the
interests of the society. Their sole aim and purpose is to main peace and harmony in their
society. The RWA’S primarily consist of people from the society thus making the process
of understanding the interest of the society better. Hence, they can issue notices to people
who contribute to the nuisance and disturbance in the society. However, they have no
power to suspend or prevent a prudent person from exercising his/her rights.

12
Merriam Webster’s Dictionary,88(10th ed.2004).
16
MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER
DAMODARAM SANJIVAYYA NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY

34. But it is the moral duty of every person to comply with the certain rules of the RWA’s
which work towards the greater good of the society, aiming to prevent nuisance and
13
disharmony in the society. It is clearly mentioned in the fact sheet in para 5, para 6 and
para7 that Jidh Kumar never paid heed to the RWA’s instructions .Few of the reasonable
requests made by the RWA were:
a) Reduce the number of dogs he owned by giving away some of his dogs for adoption .It is
clearly mentioned in the fact sheet that he stayed in a 2 bedroom flat with 16 dogs which
wouldn’t provide a healthy environment to the dogs as well.
b) Vaccinate all his dogs in order to ensure the safety of the other residents in the locality. )
Under the Govt. of India, Animal Birth Control Rules 2001, no sterilized dogs can be
relocated from their area. This is what is mentioned in the rules.

13
Moot Proposition
17
MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER
DAMODARAM SANJIVAYYA NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY

PRAYER
Wherefore in the light of the issues raised, arguments advanced, reasons given and authorities
cited, it is humbly prayed that this honorable court may be pleased to hold, adjudge and declare
that:

1. The vaccination and sterilization of all of Jidh Kumar’s dogs.


2. Secondly, Jidh Kumar should be asked to give up a few dogs for adoption

And any other relief/ order that this court may be pleased to grant in the interests of justice, equity
and good conscience.

For This Act of Kindness, the Petitioner Shall Duty Bound Forever Pray.

18
MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER