Allowed

Adi H.Banaji v. Old Parsi Fire Temple Trust

Telangana HC27 Jun 2013CMA/342/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the appeal and set aside the trial court order dismissing the leave application under Section 92 CPC. Since the second plaintiff was impleaded before the application was heard, the suit complied with the provision. The trial court is directed to decide the suit on merits.

What did the court decide?

Leave granted to plaintiffs to pursue the suit; Trial Court to decide on merits.

Adi H.Banaji Vs Old Parsi Fire Temple Trust — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Telangana HC (2013)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY AND

¶2

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE S.V.BHATT

¶3

C.M.A.No.342 of 2013

¶4

JUDGMENT: (Per the Hon’ble Sri Justice L.Narasimha Reddy)

¶5

The appellants herein filed O.S.No.134 of 2005 in the Court of IX Additional Chief Judge (Fast Track Court), City Civil Court, Hyderabad, against the respondents, to declare that the present constitution of the

¶6

1^st defendant-Old Parsi Fire Temple Trust, is not in accordance with the mandate and wishes of the author of the Trust; and to disqualify and prohibit defendants 2 to 6 from acting and holding the office of Trustees. Relief as to entitlement of the plaintiffs to participate in the activities of the trust, was also claimed.

¶7

As required under Section 92 of the C.P.C., the appellants filed I.A.No.565 of 2011 with a prayer to grant leave to them, to pursue the suit. It is pleaded that the intention of the plaintiffs is to protect the interests of the trust; they do not have any personal claim and that the permission be granted to them.

¶8

The application was opposed by respondent No.4. It is stated that the very institution of the suit, only by one plaintiff was untenable and the impleading of the 2^nd plaintiff at a later point of time, does not cure the defect. He further pleaded that the averments in the plaint and I.A. are imaginary and that the trust was being administered strictly in accordance with the contents of the trust deed.

¶9

The trial Court dismissed the I.A. through order, dated 17.08.2012. As a result, the suit was also dismissed on the same day. This miscellaneous appeal is filed against the order, dated 17.08.2012, in I.A.No.565 of 2011.

¶10

Heard Sri P.Roy Reddy, learned counsel for the appellants, and Sri V.Ramachander Goud, learned counsel for the respondents.

¶11

Section 92 C.P.C. prescribes the procedure to be followed, in the matter of institution of suits in respect of Trusts and Trust properties. One of the requirements is that the suit must be filed by two or more plaintiffs. It is no doubt true that the present suit was initially filed by only one plaintiff. Had the same situation remained by the time I.A. was filed for leave, it would certainly have ended up in dismissal, in view of the specific requirement under Section 92(1) C.P.C. However, the 2^nd plaintiff got himself impleaded, and by the time the I.A. was taken up for enquiry, there were two plaintiffs. The trial Court was mostly impressed by the fact that the suit itself was not maintainable. It was observed that the suit did not suffer from any basic infirmity, since the 2^nd plaintiff was impleaded by the time the leave was sought.

¶12

Since the suit was dismissed solely on the basis of the I.A., and the I.A., in turn, was dismissed mostly on technical grounds, we do not propose to delve deep into the merits of the matter. This much, however, can be said that the appellants are only making an attempt to ensure that the Old Parsi Temple and its properties are maintained and administered in accordance with the terms of Trust Deed. The trial Court dismissed the I.A. without proper basis.

¶13

We accordingly allow the appeal and the order under appeal is set aside. Consequently, I.A.No.565 of 2011 is allowed, granting leave to the plaintiffs to pursue the suit. It is directed that the trial Court shall decide the matter on merits by giving opportunity to both the parties. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶14

The miscellaneous petition filed in this appeal shall also stand disposed of.

¶15

____________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY, J.

S.V.BHATT, J.

Dated:27.06.2013

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY and THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE S.V.BHATT

¶20

C.M.A.No.342 of 2013

¶21

(Per the Hon’ble Sri Justice L.Narasimha Reddy)

¶22

Date:27.06.2013

¶23

Adi H.Banaji v. Old Parsi Fire Temple Trust

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Adi H.Banaji v. Old Parsi Fire Temple Trust

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kota Sridhar Vs Kota Uma Jyothi

P.Savithri (died) Vs Spl Dy Collector

G. Eswara Reddy Vs The Govt. of A.P.

Aruri Laxmaiah, Vs Vemula Satya Murthy

Nemani Ramalakshmi Vs Bokka Satyanarayana

Pillela Mallikarjuna Vs Pillela Srilakshmi , Rami Setty Srilakshmi