Dismissed

Dinesh Kumar v. Management, Shiv Mandir Committee (D.T.)

Rajasthan HC24 Nov 2021CW/3647/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Supreme Court dismissed two writ petitions challenging the trial court's dismissal of an amendment application. The writ petitioners argued that a suit filed by an unregistered public trust is barred under Section 29 of the Rajasthan Public Trusts Act. The High Court held that subsequent registration renders the amendment necessary but affirming the impugned order and dissenting from the petit

What did the court decide?

The writ petitions were dismissed and all pending applications stood disposed of, affirming the impugned order.

Dinesh Kumar Vs Management, Shiv Mandir Committee (D.T.) — Property and Title | Rajasthan HC (2021)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶2

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3647/2019

¶3

Dinesh Kumar S/o Shri Girdhari Das Ji, Aged About 51 Years, Resident Of Shiv Mandir Market, Shergarh Tehsil Shergarh Distt. Jodhpur.

¶4

----Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

Management, Shiv Mandir Committee (D.t.), Through General Secretary Goma Ram Son Of Shri Lalu Ram Ji Soni, Resident Of Upri Sunaro Ka Bass, Shergarh Tehsil Shergarh Distt. Jodhpur.

¶7

----Respondent

¶8

Connected With

¶9

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4254/2019

¶10

Parasmal S/o Shri Dhan Raj Ji, Aged About 68 Years, By Caste Sewag, Resident Of Shiv Mandir Market, Shergarh Tehsil Shergarh Distt. Jodhpur.

¶11

----Petitioner

¶12

Versus

¶13

Management, Shiv Mandir Committee (D.t.), Through General Secretary Goma Ram Son Of Shri Lalu Ram Ji Soni, Resident Of Upri Sunaro Ka Bass, Shergarh Tehsil Shergarh, Distt. Jodhpur.

¶14

----Respondent

¶15

For Petitioner(s)	: Mr. J. Gehlot
For Respondent(s)	: Mr. L.K. Purohit

¶16

HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI

¶17

Order

¶18

24/11/2021

¶19

These writ petitions have been preferred claiming the following reliefs:

¶20

“(i) Impugned orders dated 21.01.2019 i.e. Annexure 5 be set aside.

¶21

(ii) The Respondent application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC dismiss with cost.”

¶22

(2 of 5)

¶23

[CW-3647/2019]

¶24

For the sake of convenience and brevity, the facts are being taken from CWP No.3647/2019, while treating the same as a lead case. 3. The plaintiff-respondent filed a suit for eviction and recovery of rent for the disputed shop in which it is stated that the property, which is situated at Village Shergarh, and Shiv Mandir Trust having shops in which the petitioner is one of the tenant. The petitioner was doing his business in the disputed shop and its monthly rent was Rs.500/- (at present Rs.540/- per month). The petitioner however, failed to pay rent after July 2008.

¶25

The present suit was thus filed by the respondent for due rent and eviction. The petitioner filed a written statement on 19.09.2013. The respondent submitted an application under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) on 27.09.2018 stating therein that the respondent-Shiv Mandir Management Trust applied for its registration and the same was being registered on 08.12.2017, and thus, the respondent prayed for amendment in the suit title and some paragraphs of the plaint. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the aforementioned application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC was preferred for taking the subsequent development, including registration of the respondent on record.

¶26

Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that since the registration had happened subsequently, therefore, the same ought not to be taken into consideration, in the interest of justice, and thus, the same has wrongly been allowed.

¶27

Learned counsel for the petitioners also submits that the registration in question shall have an impact of changing the

¶28

(3 of 5)

¶29

[CW-3647/2019]

¶30

nature of the suit, as the suit itself would not have been maintainable without such registration, and thus, the suit in question is unnecessarily prejudicing the petitioners.

¶31

Learned counsel further submits that Section 29 of the Rajasthan Public Trusts Act (42 to 1959) is a bar against suit by unregistered trusts. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioners relied upon the precedent law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Public Trust Shri Geeta Satsang Bhawan Vs. Nand Lal & Ors., reported in AIR

¶32

2017 SC 3603 , relevant portion of which reads as under:

¶33

“17. During the pendency of this appeal, the appellant (plaintiff) filed I.A. No 5 of 2013 and sought permission to file additional documents in support of their case. The appellant along with IA filed one Registration Certificate issued on 07.02.2013 by the office of the Assistant Commissioner, Department of Endowments, Jodhpur, Government of Rajasthan (Annexure A-3) certifying therein that the appellant(plaintiff)-Trust is registered under the Act w.e.f. 07.02.2013. A prayer was, therefore, made to take this document on record being relevant one for deciding the appeal. This I.A. was allowed by this Court’s order dated 20.01.2014.

¶34

18. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the record of the case, we are inclined to allow the appeal in part and while setting aside the impugned order and also of the first Appellate Court and the Trial Court restore the civil suit to its file for deciding the civil suit afresh on merits in accordance with law.

¶35

19. It is an admitted fact that the appellant/plaintiff - Trust was not a registered public Trust under the Act on the date of filing the civil suit. It is also an admitted fact that the appellant-plaintiff, therefore, got the Trust registered as required under the Act only on 07.02.2013 during the pendency of this appeal.

¶36

(4 of 5)

¶37

[CW-3647/2019]

¶38

20. Section 29 of the Act, which applies to this case, reads as under:

¶39

- “Section 29. Bar against suits by un-registered trust (1) No suit to enforce a right on behalf of a public trust which is required to be registered under this Act but has not been so registered shall be heard or decided in any Court.

¶40

(2) The provisions of Sub-section(1) shall apply to claim of set off or other proceeding to enforce a right on behalf of such public trust.”

¶41

21. Section 29 creates a bar "for hearing and deciding a suit" filed by the public Trust for enforcement of any of their rights, if the said Trust is not registered under the Act. The bar, therefore, applies for "hearing and deciding” a suit and not in filing the suit. In other words, suit can be filed by the unregistered Trust but such suit will neither be heard nor decided by the Court unless and until the Trust is registered under the Act. Section 29 is, therefore, operates as stay of proceedings in the suit so long as the Trust does not get itself registered under the Act.”

¶42

Learned counsel for the respondent vehemently opposes the petition.

¶43

After hearing learned counsel for the parties as well as perusing the record of the case alongwith the precedent law cited at the Bar, this Court finds that the impugned order is fully justified as the suit was filed in the year 2013 and the written statement was also filed in 2013, but the registration of the respondent-Trust itself happened on 08.12.2017, and thus, the suit was required to be amended in the interest of substantial justice.

¶44

(5 of 5) [CW-3647/2019]

¶45

The precedent law cited on behalf of the petitioners is not of the stage in which the present suit is, and thus, the same is not applicable in the present case. The learned trial court was thus right in holding that a subsequent event of registration of the Trust in question has to result into the necessary amendments in the plaint, so that an error of law does not creep into the adjudication in question.

¶46

In view of the above, no case for making any interference is made out.

¶47

Consequently, the present petitions are dismissed. All pending applications stand disposed of.

¶48

(DR.PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI),J.

¶49

196-197-SKant/-

Dinesh Kumar v. Management, Shiv Mandir Committee (D.T.)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dinesh Kumar v. Management, Shiv Mandir Committee (D.T.)

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

Suman Swami Vs State and Anr.

Kishan Lal Soni Vs Shri Nagrik Shiksha Samiti

Smt. Marudhar Kanwar Vs State and Ors.

Lalas Lrs and Anr. Vs State and Ors.

Inderjeet Singh Vs State Irrigation and Ors.

Jasvindra Singh and Anr. Vs Stat E and Ors.