Madras High Court
Madha Trust vs D.Daniel Amaladoss on 4 September, 2023
C.R.P(MD)Nos.1359 to 1362 of 2015
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 04.09.2023
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.VIJAYAKUMAR
C.R.P.(NPD)(MD)Nos.1359 to 1362 of 2015
and
M.P.(MD)Nos.1, 1, 1 and 1 of 2015
Madha Trust,
Represented by its Founder/Managing Trustee,
Rev.Fr.A.Savarimuthu,
S/o.Anthony, 45, Karuppur,
Maruthanallur Post,
Kumbakonam Taluk,
Thanjavur District. ...Petitioner in CRP(MD)No.1359/2015
Integrated Multi Services Trust,
Represented by its Founder/Trustee,
I.Mariya Selvam,
S/o.Irudhayasamy,
No.4/730, Needamangalam Road,
Sakkottai,
Kumbakonam Taluk. ...Petitioner in CRP(MD)No.1360/2015
Savariar Educational Trust,
Represented by its Founder,
Mariya Christy,
W/o.Amalraj,
45, Karuppur,
Marudhanallur Post,
Kumbakonam Taluk,
Thanjavur District. ...Petitioner in CRP(MD)No.1361 of 2015
1/10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P(MD)Nos.1359 to 1362 of 2015
Integrated Research Reconstruction and
Development Trust,
Represented by its Founder,
I.Mariya Selvam,
W/o.Irudayasamy,
4/730, Needamangalam,
Sakkottai, Kumbakonam Taluk,
Thanajvur District. ...Petitioner in CRP(MD)No.1362/2015
-vs-
1.D.Daniel Amaladoss
2.P.Ravikumar
3.Smt.Akciliya Roselin Aruna
4.Uthiriyanathan
5.I.Mariya Selvam
6.I.Mariya Christy
7.Pitchai Jothimani
8.Bhuvaneswari ... Respondents in CRP(MD)No.1359/2015
1.D.Daniel Amaladoss
2.P.Ravikumar ...Respondents in CRP(MD)Nos.1360,
1361 and 1362/2015
COMMON PRAYER: Civil Revision Petitions are filed under Article 227
of the Constitution of India, to call for the records to pertaining to the order
dated 03.06.2015 passed in I.A.No.82 of 2014 in O.S.No.42 of 2014,
I.A.No.302 of 2015 in O.S.No.106 of 2014, I.A.No.206 of 2015 in O.S.No.
110 of 2014 and I.A.No.303 of 2015 in O.S.No.111 of 2014 on the file of
the Second Additional District cum Sessions Judge, Thanjavur and set aside
the same.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P(MD)Nos.1359 to 1362 of 2015
In all Petitions:
For Petitioner : Mr.T.A.Ebenezer
For R2 : Mr.G.Karnan
For R1 : No Appearance
In CRP(MD)No.1359 of 2015:
For R3 : Ms.S.Mahalakshmi
For R4 to R8 : No Appearance
COMMON ORDER
All the revision petitions arise out of a common order of the trial
Court, wherein applications filed by the defendants for rejection of plaint
were dismissed.
2.The contesting respondents in all revision petitions have filed
O.S.Nos.42, 106, 110, 111 of 2014 on the file of the II Additional District
and Sessions Court, Thanjavur for the relief of framing a scheme for four
different trusts along with other reliefs. Along with the said suits, the
plaintiff had filed I.A.Nos.151, 109 & 110 of 2014 in O.S.Nos.106, 110 &
111 of 2014, respectively under Section 92 of the Civil Procedure Code
(hereinafter referred to as 'CPC' for the sake of brevity) seeking leave of the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P(MD)Nos.1359 to 1362 of 2015
Court to institute the said suits. However, from the records, it could be seen
that no application under Section 92 CPC seeking leave of the Court has
been filed along with the plaint in O.S.No.42 of 2014. The trial Court,
instead of issuing notice to the other side in the applications filed under
Section 92 CPC, had directly numbered the suits and issued notice to the
defendants in the suits.
3.The defendants have filed I.A.Nos.82 of 2014 & 302, 206 and 303
of 2015 seeking rejection of plaint on the ground that without allowing
Section 92 applications, the suits have been numbered and therefore, they
have to be rejected.
4.The plaintiffs have contended that they have filed applications
under Section 92 CPC in all suits and when the said applications were
pending, petitions under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC are not maintainable. The
trial Court accepted the said view and dismissed all the applications seeking
rejection of plaint. Challenging the said orders, the present revision
petitions have been filed.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P(MD)Nos.1359 to 1362 of 2015
5.According to the learned counsel for the revision petitioners, grant
of leave by the Court under Section 92 CPC is made before numbering the
suits as against the Public Charitable Trusts. Therefore, without granting
such leave, the suits could not have been numbered. The trial Court had
erroneously dismissed the applications filed under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC
without considering the legal aspect of obtaining leave under Section 92 of
CPC.
6.Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondents/plaintiffs
contended that, they along with suits, have filed Section 92 CPC
applications. However, the trial Court has proceeded to number the suits
and they cannot be found fault for the fault of the Court and the plaints filed
by the parties for framing of a scheme for administration of trusts cannot be
rejected.
7.I have carefully considered the submissions made on either side and
perused the records.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P(MD)Nos.1359 to 1362 of 2015
8.Perusal of the plaints in all four suits would reveal that apart from
the prayer of framing a scheme for the administration of four different
trusts, other prayers have also been sought for by the plaintiffs. Therefore,
it is clear that leave of the Court has to be obtained under Section 92 CPC.
Even though some of the prayers relate to some personnel disputes between
the parties, the main prayer revolves around framing of schemes by the trial
Court. Therefore, it is mandatory to obtain leave of the Court before
numbering the said suits.
9.Admittedly, the plaintiffs had filed Section 92 applications in
O.S.Nos.106, 110 and 111 of 2014 and they have been numbered and
pending. The trial Court without deciding the said applications on merits,
had directly numbered the suits. The applications filed under Order 7 Rule
11 CPC were also dismissed solely on the ground that Section 92
applications are pending. This procedure adopted by the trial Court is
clearly in violation of Section 92 CPC, in view of the fact that allowing of
application under Section 92 CPC is a prerequisite for numbering the suit.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P(MD)Nos.1359 to 1362 of 2015
10.The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Bhupinder Singh vs.
Joginder Singh (D) by Lrs and others [2020 2 L.W. 297], in Paragraph No.
7, has held as follows:
“7. Learned counsel for the appellant urges that in view of
law laid down by this Court, it is imperative that leave must be
granted before the suit is instituted. There is no quarrel with this
proposition and we are not inclined to hold, as the High Court did,
that leave can be presumed to have been granted. There can be no
presumption of this kind in a case of this nature. We are clearly of
the view that in every suit filed under Section 92, CPC, the grant of
leave is necessary before the suit can be said to be properly
instituted.”
11.In view of the said legal position, the trial Court ought not to have
numbered the suits. There cannot be any presumption that Section 92
applications have already been allowed, just because the suits have been
numbered. However, the plaintiff cannot be found fault with for the said
procedure adopted by the trial Court.
12.When Section 92 applications have been filed and numbered, the
trial Court ought to have issued notice to the respondents in the said
applications and after hearing them, orders should have been passed in those
applications. Depending upon the result in Section 92 applications, the suits
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P(MD)Nos.1359 to 1362 of 2015
should have been numbered. But in the present case, the suits have already
been numbered due to the fault on part of the Court. Therefore, the
plaintiffs cannot be put to prejudice for the fault committed by the Court by
adopting erroneous procedure.
13.As far as I.A.Nos.106, 110 and 111 of 2014 in O.S.Nos.106, 110
and 111 of 2014 are concerned, the trial Court was right in rejecting Order 7
Rule 11 CPC applications on the ground that Section 92 petitions are
already pending. However, the trial Court should not proceed with the trial
of the suits before disposing of Section 92 petitions.
14.As far as O.S.No.42 of 2014 is concerned, the trial Court has given
a specific finding that no application has been been filed under Section 92
CPC seeking leave of the Court. The prayer in the said suit reveals that
apart from other prayer, the plaintiff has sought for framing a scheme for the
management of the trusts, which squarely falls under Section 92 (1)(g) of
CPC. The trial Court was not right in tagging the suit in O.S.No.42 of 2014
along with other suits and passing a common order.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P(MD)Nos.1359 to 1362 of 2015
15.In view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court stated
supra, in a suit filed under Section 92 CPC and leave of the Court should be
obtained. If not done, the suit ought not to have been numbered and the suit
is not maintainable. Therefore, the order of the trial Court in I.A.No.82 of
2014 is hereby set aside and the plaint in O.S.No.42 of 2014 stands rejected
and C.R.P.(MD)No.1359 of 2015 stands allowed.
16.C.R.P.(MD)Nos.1360 to 1362 of 2015 stand dismissed with the
aforesaid observations. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous
petitions are closed.
04.09.2023
NCC : Yes / No
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes
ta
To
The Second Additional District cum Sessions Judge,
Thanjavur.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P(MD)Nos.1359 to 1362 of 2015
R.VIJAYAKUMAR,J.
ta
C.R.P.(NPD)(MD)Nos.1359 to 1362 of 2015
04.09.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
