This order dismisses a civil revision petition challenging the grant of leave under Section 92 CPC to institute a suit regarding a public trust. The court held that notice is not required and no reasoned order is necessary for such administrative acts.
Civil Revision Petition dismissed. No costs.
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.
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED
CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.5698 of 2010
ORDER
The petitioners herein are third parties to the suit. Respondent Nos.1 and 2 herein filed I.A.(SR).No.26483 of 2010 in O.S.(SR) No.26482 of 2010 before the Court of Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, under Section 92 CPC seeking to grant leave to file a suit for declaration declaring that the resolution dated 23.03.2004, as non-est in law and also for permanent injunction against respondent Nos.3 to 6 herein. Respondent Nos.1 and 2 state that they are devotees of the Society registered under the name and style of “Society of Trustees of Indigenous Churches in India’, which was registered under the provisions of A.P.(Telangana Area) Public Societies Registration Act, 1350 Fasli. The said Society has a membership of over 1000 churches spread all over the State of Andhra Pradesh and outside. They also state that, respondent Nos.3 to 6 claiming to be the Trustees of defendant No.1-Trust have superstitiously convened a special general meeting on 23.03.2004 with just 35 members and claimed to have passed a resolution to dissolve the society and to transfer the assets of the Society to Indigenous Churches in India Trust. Through order dated 20.07.2010, the Court below allowed the said I.A. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioners filed the present civil revision petition.
2. Heard the first petitioner, party-in-person, learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 and 2/plaintiffs and the learned counsel for respondent Nos.3 to 6/defendants.
3 . The first petitioner contended that the suit is not maintainable under Section 92 C.P.C., as nowhere it is stated in the plaint that the said trust is a public trust of a religious or charitable nature. He further contended that the Court below without giving any notice to the petitioners and without assigning any reasons has passed the order impugned. He also contended that the Court below has no jurisdiction to pass the order impugned and as such, the same is liable to be set aside. He relied upon the decision of the Apex Court in INDUSTRIAL CREDIT AND INVESTMENT CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD., v. GRAPCO INDUSTRIES LIMITE D[1] .
4. Learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 and 2 contended that I.A. is filed only to grant leave to file the suit in a representative capacity and that the petitioners being third parties to the suit has no locus standi to challenge the order impugned without impleading themselves as parties to the suit. She further contended that grant of leave is an administrative act and no notice is required before such leave is granted. In support of her contention, she relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in R.M.NARAYANA CHETTIAR v. N. LAKSHMANAN CHETTIA R[2]
wherein it was held as under;
“As a rule of caution, the Court should normally give notice to the defendants before granting leave under Section 92 CPC to institute a suit, the Court is not bound to do so. If a suit is instituted on the basis of such leave, granted without notice to the defendants, the suit would not thereby be rendered bad in law or non-maintainable. The grant of leave cannot be regarded as defeating or even seriously prejudicing any right of the proposed defendants because it is always open to them to file an application for revocation of the leave which can be considered on merits and according to law”.
5. Learned counsel for respondent Nos.3 to 6 contended that
the petitioners being third parties to the suit have no locus standi to file this revision.
6. Section 92 CPC reads as under:
Public Charities-(1) In the case of any alleged breach of any express or constructive trust created for public purposes of a charitable or religious nature or where the direction of the Court is deemed necessary for the administration of any such trust, the Advocate-General or two or more persons having an interest in the Trust and having obtained the leave of the Court, may institute a suit, whether contentious or not, in the principal Civil Court of original jurisdiction or in any other Court empowered in that behalf by the State Government within the local limits of whose jurisdiction the whole or any part of the subject-matter of the trust is situate to obtain a decree-
has ceased to be a trustee, to deliver possession of any trust property in his possession to the person entitled to the possession of such property;
A perusal of Section 92 CPC, shows that it does not contemplate giving of any notice to the proposed defendants before granting leave. It was held by the Apex Court in R.M.NARAYAN CHETTIAR’s cited 2 supra that for granting leave under Section 92 CPC, the Court does not have to write a reasoned order and it does not even to give a notice to the defendant as the order of granting leave is of an administrative nature.
7. In view of the above, I do not find any infirmity in the order impugned.
Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No
costs.
_____________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED, J
Date:15.07.2011 sj
[1] AIR 1999 SC 1975
[2] AIR 1991 SC 221
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the court below was required to give notice to third party petitioners before granting leave under Section 92 CPC.
Whether the court below was required to pass a reasoned order before granting leave under Section 92 CPC.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
INDUSTRIAL CREDIT AND INVESTMENT CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD. v. GRAPCO INDUSTRIES LIMITEDReferred¶6
AIR 1999 SC 1975 · Who else cites this
R.M.NARAYANA CHETTIAR v. N. LAKSHMANAN CHETTIARelied on¶9,13
AIR 1991 SC 221 · Who else cites this
1 provisions across 1 enactments
THE PETITIONERS
RESPONDENT NOS. 1 AND 2
RESPONDENT NOS. 3 TO 6
GHULAM MOHAMMED
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
