Point of Law : Where the allegation of breach of trust, direction for administration of Trust is absent, the suit is maintainable and obtaining leave under Section 92 of the CPC is not necessary.

ORDER :

The present petitioner is defendant No.4 in the Original Suit No.238/2017, instituted by the present respondents No.1 to 3, as plaintiffs, for the relief of declaration and perpetual injunction in the Court of the learned III Additional Civil Judge, Kalaburagi, at Kalaburagi (hereinafter for brevity referred to as “the Trial Court”). The present respondents No.4 to 6 are the defendants No.1 to 3 and present respondents No.7 to 9 are the defendants No.5 to 7 in the said suit in the Trial Court.

2. After the appearance of the defendant No.4 (present petitioner) in the Trial Court, before filing his written statement, if any, he filed an interlocutory application -I.A.No.II under Order VII, Rule 11(d) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, (hereinafter for brevity referred to as “the CPC”), seeking rejection of the plaint as barred by law. After hearing both side, the Trial Court, by its order dated 31-01-2018, dismissed the said interlocutory application– I.A.No.II. Aggrieved by the same, the applicant in the said Interlocutory Application – I.A.No.II (defendant No.4) has filed the present revision petition.

3. The respondents No.1 to 3 are being represented by their learned counsel, respondents No.4 to 6 and 8, though have been served, but still remained un-represented. The service of notice against respondents No.7 and 9 was held sufficient.

4. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner is physically appearing in the Court and learned counsel for the respondents No.1 to 3 is appearing through video conference. Heard the arguments from both side. Perused the materials placed before this Court, including the memorandum of revision petition and the impugned order passed by the Trial Court.

5. After hearing the learned counsels from both side and after going through the material placed before this Court, the only point that arise for my consideration is this revision petition is:

Whether the impugned order suffers from any illegality, irregularity or impropriety, warranting interference at the hands of this Court?

6. The undisputed fact remains that, the present respondents No.1 to 3 as plaintiffs, have filed an Original Suit in O.S.No.238/2017, in the Trial Court, against the defendants therein, including the present petitioner (defendant No.4), for declaration and perpetual injunction. In a nutshell, the contention of the plaintiffs in their plaint is that, the "AL-NIDA-E-ISLAM EDUCATIONAL AND CHARITABLE TRUST" (hereinafter referred to as "the Trust") is a recognised Minority Public Trust. The plaintiffs No.1 to 3 are the Trustees for life, and defendants No.1 to 4 are also the Author of the Principal Trust. However, defendants No.5 to 7 were co-opted as new member trustees to the Trust under an alleged registered Supplementary Deed of Trust on 10-04-2003. The defendants, without the notice and knowledge of the plaintiffs, by passing resolutions dated 15-01-2015 and 15-02-2015, removed the plaintiffs from their respective posts in the Trust, which post of Chairman/President, Principal Trustee and the Treasurer, the plaintiffs 1 to 3 were respectively holding. The defendants also approached the concerned Banks to incorporate their names in the bank account. With these plaint averments, the plaintiffs have sought for the following prayer in their plaint:

"a. It be declared that, the resolution dated 15-01-2015 and 15-02-2015 are illegal, not binding on the plaintiff.

b. It be declared that supplementary deed of trust document No.526/2014-15 dated 05-03-2015 is illegal, non est and not binding on the plaintiffs.

c. The defendants may kindly be restrain from in the affairs of the Trust in the absence of the plaintiffs.

d. Under the facts and circumstances of the case for which the plaintiffs are entitle may kindly granted.

e. Cost of the suit may awarded."

7. The present petitioner who is the defendant No.4 in the Original Suit before the Trial Court, after his appearance, did not file his written statement, but filed an Interlocutory