JUDGMENT

K.S. Panicker Radhakrishnan, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. These appeals arise out of a common judgment of the High Court of Madras at Madurai dated 11.9.2007 declining to convert the Trust OP No. 96 of 2002 as a civil suit and be tried accordingly.

3. Trust OP No. 96 of 2002 was filed by the Appellants who were beneficiaries of six trusts before the Principal District Judge, Thoothukudi under Sections 61, 62, 65, 66 and 92 of the Trust Act read with Order VI Rules 1 to 3, 5 to 7 and 26 of the Code of Civil Procedure for the following reliefs:

a. To call upon the Respondents 1 to 12 to restore the corpus and accretions gained by the six trusts detailed in the schedule from the date of their incorporation till the date of realization.

b. To trace the fissipations effected on the schedule Trusts by the I Defendant and his associate companies.

c. To appoint a receiver for all the properties of the I Defendant and through lifting the corporate veil on the company held by the I Defendant including Mountain Spinning Mills.

d. To trace the fissipations on the Schedule Trusts and bring the properties and monies to the Petitioner's Court account from whichever source they are available.

e. To call upon the I Defendant to account from the late of creation of the six schedule trusts as to bring the proceeds to the Court.

4. During the pendency of the OP, Respondent Nos. 1 to 14 and 16 filed interlocutory applications separately under Order VII Rule 11 Code of Civil Procedure requesting the court to reject the said Trust O.P. on common grounds. The sum and substance of those grounds were as follows:

(a) there is no cause of action disclosed against the Respondents.

(b) the said Trust O.P. is barred under Section 9 of the Code of Code of Civil Procedure, since the relief sought for are to be agitated only by means of a suit.

(c) the reliefs prayed for in the Trust O.P. is barred by limitation; and

(d) lastly, the said Trust O.P. is liable to be rejected on the ground that the same has not been properly valued for the purpoe of paying the Court Fees.

5. Matter was hotly contested before the Principal District Judge, Thoothukudi and the applications filed under Order VII Rule 11 Code of Civil Procedure was allowed vide common judgment dated 17.10.2005. Aggrieved by the same, the Petitioners in Trust O.P. approached the Hon'ble High Court by way of an appeal AS 49 of 2006 and the Respondent. Nos. 1 to 14 and 16 in the Trust O.P. filed appeal Nos. 50 to 64 of 2006 under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, and the 11th Respondent in the Trust O.P. filed M.P. No. 4 of 2007. The maintainability of the appeals was successfully questioned by the Respondents before the High Court, but the High Court converted those appeals as revision petitions and were heard along with M.P. No. 4 of 2007. The High Court vide judgment dated 11.9.2007 dismissed all the revision petitions and allowed M.P. No. 4 of 2007 and held that the District Court was justified in allowing the applications filed under Order VII Rule 11 Code of Civil Procedure rejecting the Trust O.P. and it was also ordered that the Trust O.P. could not be converted as a civil suit. However, it was held that the order of rejection of the Trust O.P. would not stand in the way of the Petitioners in Trust O.P. filing a fresh suit in accordance with law. Aggrieved by the judgment of the Madras High Court these appeals have been preferred.

6. Shri P.S. Narsimha, learned senior Counsel appearing for the Appellants submitted relying upon Section 49 of the Trust Act that the Court has a duty to control the affairs of the Trust and its trustees under its discretionary powers when they are being mismanaged. Learned senior Counsel pointed out that while invoking Section 49 of the Act the Court should not stick on to hyper technicalities in respect of forms and procedures, it is the duty of the principal civil court even to act suo motu whenever it is brought to the notice of the court that there is a misconduct or