An appeal challenging impleadment of two applicants as substituted plaintiffs in a Section 92 CPC trust suit where the leave application remained pending and original plaintiffs sought withdrawal. Relying on its earlier judgment in Nirmal Lugani, the Division found no reason to interfere and dismissed the appeal.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
$~36
BAPTIST CHURCH TRUST ASSOCIATION .....Appellant Through: Mr. Deeptakirti Verma, Ms. Neha Sharma, Advs.
versus
ANIL KUMAR MASIH & ORS. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Sanjiv Bahl, Mr. Pankaj Mehta, Ms. Sweta Soni, Ms. Vanshika Puri, Advs. for -1 & 2 Mr. Abhishek Kaushik, Adv. for R-6 & 7
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KSHETARPAL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARISH VAIDYANATHAN SHANKAR
O R D E R
% 10.10.2025
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 14/10/2025 at 13:01:53
application was also filed by the Appellant. At that stage, the Respondent Nos.3 to 5/Plaintiffs sought permission of the Court to withdraw the suit. Thereafter, the Applicants/Respondent Nos.1 and 2 filed two applications under Order I Rule 10(2) read wth Section 151 of the CPC seeking impleadment as Plaintiffs in the suit, which has been allowed by the learned Single Judge. In fact, an identical issue has been examined by this Bench at length in FAO(OS) 21/2023 captioned Nirmal Lugani & Ors. v. Late Sh Ram Sarup Lugani & Ors. vide judgment dated 25.09.2025. The relevant paragraphs of the said judgment is extracted below:
“16. Upon a careful scrutiny and deliberation of the Impugned Order, we find ourselves in agreement with the conclusion reached by the learned Single Judge, inasmuch as no error can be discerned therein. The learned Single Judge has rightly held that the suit had merely been filed and the application seeking leave to institute the same was still pending. At such a stage, it could not be said that the mandatory requirements of Section 92 of the CPC stood violated.
17. Section 92 of the CPC, in explicit terms, mandates that two or more persons having an interest in the trust must seek leave of the Court to institute a suit. Admittedly, on the date when the application in question came to be filed and decided, the application for leave to institute the Suit was still pending consideration.
18. While allowing the impleadment, the learned Single Judge correctly distinguished the reliance placed on Rahul Jain (supra) by the Respondent, noting that the factual matrix therein was entirely different from the present case. In Rahul Jain (supra), the Court was concerned with a situation where leave to institute a suit had been granted solely on the basis of one person. It was for this reason that the Court held that the requirements of Section 92 of the CPC were not satisfied.
19. In contrast, in the present case, the question of compliance with Section 92 of the CPC, specifically as to whether leave can be granted to Respondent Nos. 2 to 4 herein, is yet to be adjudicated on its merits.
20. The learned Single Judge, placing reliance on the Full Bench judgment of the Allahabad High Court in Raj Nairain Saxena v. Bhim Sen & Ors.; 1965 SCC OnLine All 109, observed that unless a particular procedure is expressly prohibited by law, its absence of prohibition must be construed as permitting its adoption.
This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 14/10/2025 at 13:01:53
21. In Raj Nairain Saxena (supra), it was emphasized that procedure is the handmaiden of justice and not its mistress, and that the provisions of the CPC are not exhaustive so as to account for every conceivable situation. The Court reiterated that the foundational purpose of procedural law is to advance the cause of justice, and therefore, in the absence of a specific prohibition, a restrictive interpretation ought not to be inferred. On the contrary, procedural rules must be interpreted in a manner that facilitates, rather than obstructs, the course of justice.
22. In this backdrop, the learned Single Judge has merely permitted the addition of two more persons in the application seeking leave to institute the suit. The question as to whether these newly impleaded persons do, in fact, possess the requisite interest in the trust, as contemplated under Section 92 of the CPC, is an issue that remains to be determined at a later stage and is not germane to the present proceedings.
23. In fact, a meaningful reading of Rahul Jain (supra) would indicate that a suit under Section 92 of the CPC comes into existence only upon the Court granting leave. Since the stage of granting leave has not yet arrived in the present case, there is no bar to the exercise of the Court’s inherent powers under Section 151 of the CPC in order to secure the ends of justice. ”
This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 14/10/2025 at 13:01:53
aspects can be examined and defects, if any, could be cured. 6. Hence, this Court finds no reason to interfere with the Impugned Order.
ANIL KSHETARPAL, J.
HARISH VAIDYANATHAN SHANKAR, J. OCTOBER 10, 2025 jai/db
This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 14/10/2025 at 13:01:53
2 issues framed by the court
Can applicants be impleaded as plaintiffs substituting withdrawing plaintiffs in a Section 92 CPC suit whose leave application is still pending?
Should the appeal against the Single Judge's impleadment order be dismissed?
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Nirmal Lugani & Ors. v. Late Sh Ram Sarup Lugani & Ors.Relied on¶2
FAO(OS) 21/2023 captioned Nirmal Lugani & Ors. v. Late Sh Ram Sarup Lugani & Ors., judgment dated 25.09.2025
2 provisions across 1 enactments
BAPTIST CHURCH TRUST ASSOCIATION
ANIL KUMAR MASIH
Respondent Nos. 1 and 2
ANIL KSHETARPAL
HARISH VAIDYANATHAN SHANKAR
As recorded by the court registry
An appeal to a Division Bench against an order made by a single judge on the original side of the High Court.
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
