Dismissed

Naveen Kumar Jain and 15 Others v. Additional District Judge and 2 Others

Allahabad HC13 Dec 2018A227/9166/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court dismissed a writ petition challenging an order rejecting an objection to the grant of leave to institute a suit under Section 92 of the CPC. Relying on Surya Devi Rai, the Court held that the supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 precluded interference with such an order.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was dismissed.

Naveen Kumar Jain and 15 Others Vs… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 36

¶2

Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 9166 of 2018

¶3

Petitioner :- Naveen Kumar Jain And 15 Others Respondent :- Additional District Judge And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Nipun Singh Counsel for Respondent :- Satyendra Narayan Singh

¶4

Hon'ble Mrs. Sunita Agarwal,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Nipun Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Satyendra Naranan Singh, learned counsel for the respondent no. 3.

¶6

The order impugned in the present petition is an order of rejection of objection 23-Ga filed by the petitioners/defendants in Original Suit No. 1 of 2016, which has been filed under Section 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure. First objection taken by the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the court below has erred in granting leave to institute the said suit under Section 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure, inasmuch as, none of the ingredients of Section 92 (1) can be found for maintaining the suit. Submission is that the suit was instituted by one person namely Ramesh Chand Jain claiming himself to be the Secretary of the Managing Committee of the Society, which allegedly laid claim of right to maintain the suit property. Second submission is that the relief claimed in the suit cannot be granted within the meaning of any of the Clauses (a) to (h) of Sub-Section 1 of Section 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

¶7

It is relevant to note that the suit, though initially was filed by Sri Ramesh Chandra Jain claiming himself to be the Secretary but it has been amended and now has been maintained on behalf of the respondent no. 3, who claims to be a valid committee constituted to maintain the temple in question.

¶8

As per the plaint averments, the suit property is a temple and has been mentioned to be a charitable and religious society. The question as to whether the said society is a public trust within the meaning of the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Act 1951 is subject matter of evidence.

¶9

From a perusal of the plaint, the first relief claimed is for redemption of account and handing over management of the affairs of the temple and suit property to the plaintiff. The said relief cannot be said to be beyond the provisions of the Clauses (a) to (h) of Sub-Section (1) of Section 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The second relief seeking declaration against the

¶10

defendant/petitioner is a consequential relief which also falls within the meaning of various clauses of Sub-Section (1) of Section 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

¶11

For both the above reasons, on the grounds as taken to assail the order impugned, no interference can be made in the order of grant of leave to institute the Original Suit No. 1 of 2016, passed by the court below.

¶12

As far as the merits of the order granting leave is concerned, admittedly no notice is required to be issued to the defendants before grant of leave by the court. The order passed by the court of the Additional District Judge, Court No. 3, Muzaffar Nagar rejecting the objection 23 Ga moved by the petitioner against the decision of grant of leave to the plaintiff to institute the suit under Section 92 of the Act, in quite detail.

¶13

Having perused the said order, this Court is of the considered view that it cannot be interfered within the scope of supervisory jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in Surya Devi Rai vs. Ram Chandra reported in 2003(6) SCC 625.

¶14

The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed.

¶15

Order date :- 13.12.2018 Pratima

Naveen Kumar Jain and 15 Others v. Additional District Judge and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Naveen Kumar Jain and 15 Others v. Additional District Judge and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt. Meeta Bandopadhyay Vs Ram Krishna Mishra and 5 Others

Abu Laish Vs Civil Judge and 15 Others

Tara Rani Singh and 2 Others Vs Ashok Kumar Singh and Another

Sunil Kumar Vs Jogendra Singh and 2 Others

Ram Niwas Vs Additional District Judge/ Special Judge (D.a.a.) and 2 Others

Jagdish Sahu Vs Gore Lal Sahu and Another