Madras High Court
T.Marappan vs Knowledge Institute Of ... on 30 November, 2021
C.R.P.(PD).No.2589 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 30.11.2021
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SUBRAMANIAN
C.R.P.(PD).No.2589 of 2021
and
C.M.P.No.19199 of 2021
1.T.Marappan
2.Vadivelu
3.A.A.Thangavelu .. Petitioners
Vs.
Knowledge Institute of Technology Trust
Rep by its,
President R.Kumarasamy, Trustee/ President,
KIOT Campus, Kakapalayam,
Salem – 637 504. .. Respondent
PRAYER: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India, praying to set aside the order passed by the III
Additional District Judge, Salem passed in I.A.No.5 of 2019 dated
05.07.2021 in O.S.No.289 of 2019 and to allow the above petition in
I.A.No.5 of 2019 dated 05.07.2021 in O.S.No.289 of 2019 and thus reject
the plaint in O.S.No.289 of 2019.
For Petitioners : Mr.R.Ganesan
******
1/8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P.(PD).No.2589 of 2021
ORDER
Challenge in this Revision is to the order of the trial Court dismissing
the application filed under Order VII Rule 11 (a) and (d) of the Code of
Civil Procedure seeking rejection of the plaint in O.S.No.289 of 2019.
2. The suit was filed by the respondent Trust seeking the following
injunctive reliefs:
a) restraining the defendants from writing letters to the Banks or by
any other means preventing the plaintiff Trust from operating the Bank
accounts by R.Kumarasamy the President, the Secretary V.Sureshkumar and
Treasurer N.P.Sivaprasath as per the resolution of the Trust dated
19.05.2019 by means of permanent injunction,
b) restraining the defendants from in any manner interfering with the
administration of the College namely “Knowledge Institute of Technology”
and “Knowledge Business of School” and other entities by the plaintiff
Trust by means of permanent injunction and
c) directing the defendants to pay the cost of the suit.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P.(PD).No.2589 of 2021
3. The suit is by the Trust itself and the defendants are some of the
Trustees who had been office bearers of the Trust earlier. Claiming that the
defendants are acting against the interest of the Trust and are preventing the
present office bearers of the plaintiff Trust from carrying out day to day
activities of the management, the plaintiff Trust has sought for the
injunctive reliefs.
4. It appears that along with the suit an application under Section 92
of the Code of Civil Procedure was filed and leave to file the suit was
obtained. Upon service of notice, the defendants filed the instant
application in I.A.No.5 of 2019 seeking rejection of plaint on the ground
that the suit does not disclose cause of action and the suit is liable to be
rejected since the same is barred under Section 92 of the Code of Civil
Procedure. The main contention was that the suit under Section 92 of the
Code of Civil Procedure can be initiated by not less than two persons and
the suit filed by single individual is not maintainable.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P.(PD).No.2589 of 2021
5. The learned Additional District Judge, who heard the application,
dismissed the same, on a conclusion that the fact that the suit filed by single
individual cannot be a ground for rejection of the plaint, as the same is not
bar for the suit. He had also concluded that the plaint discloses sufficient
cause of action. The learned District Judge relied upon the judgment of this
Court in CDJ 2011 MHC 423.
6. I have heard Mr.R.Ganesan, learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner.
7. Mr.R.Ganesan, would vehemently contend that the learned District
Judge was not right in dismissing the application filed under Order VII Rule
11 of the Code of Civil Procedure. According to him, to maintain a suit
under Section 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure, there must be more than
one plaintiff, since the very Section requires that the Advocate General, or
two or more persons who have interest in the Trust to maintain a suit under
Section 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Therefore, according to him, the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P.(PD).No.2589 of 2021
suit as framed is not maintainable under Section 92 of the Code of Civil
Procedure. Hence, the plaint must be rejected.
8. I have considered the submissions of the counsel. A perusal of the
plaint and the reliefs sought for in the suit would show that the suit is not
one under Section 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Section 92 provides
for a suit against the Trust or the Trustees, wherein, certain specific reliefs
can be sought for under sub-clause (a) to (h) of the said Section. The
injunctive reliefs that are sought for in the present suit, do not come within
any of those headings. Moreover, the present suit is one by the Trust itself,
represented by its President, against some of the Trustees, who according to
him, are acting against the interest of the Trust. Therefore, at no stretch of
imagination, the suit can be held to be one under Section 92 of the Code of
Civil Procedure.
9. The mere fact that the plaintiff, on a wrong understanding of the
scope of Section 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure, sought for the leave to
sue under Section 92 and the Court also granted leave, would not convert
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P.(PD).No.2589 of 2021
the original suit into one under Section 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
If the suit is not one under Section 92, the suit as filed by the plaintiff is
perfectly maintainable. Therefore, the contention of the petitioner that the
suit filed by a single individual under Section 92 cannot be a ground for
rejection of the plaint.
10. The other ground that is raised by the counsel is that the suit does
not disclose cause of action. As far as the disclosure of cause of action is
concerned, the Hon'ble Supreme Court and this Court have held that the
Court shall go only by the plaint and the allegations in the plaint shall be
presumed to be correct for the purpose of deciding on the availability of
cause of action or otherwise. The plaint accuses the defendants of
interfering with the day to day management of the Trust. Therefore, the
allegation if taken to be true, there is definitely cause of action in the suit.
The second ground is also not available in the case on hand.
11. Though the learned District Judge had dismissed the petition on a
different ground, since the conclusion appears to be just, I do not see any
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P.(PD).No.2589 of 2021
ground to interfere with the said conclusion, in exercise of supervisory
jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The Revision
therefore fails and it is accordingly dismissed. The trial Court shall proceed
to dispose of the suit without being influenced by any of the observations
made in this order or in the order impugned in this Revision. No costs.
Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
30.11.2021
dsa
Internet :Yes
Index : No
Speaking order
To
The III Additional District Judge, Salem.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P.(PD).No.2589 of 2021
R.SUBRAMANIAN, J.
dsa
C.R.P.(PD).No.2589 of 2021
30.11.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
