Back
1983 Supreme(Del) 201
Delhi High Court
S. B. WAD
Gurdwara Prabandhak Committee, Delhi Cantonment - Appellant
Versus
Amarjit Singh Sabharwal - Respondent
C. R. No. 189 of 1983
Decided On : 07/15/1983
Daljit Singh with Ashok Kashyap, for Petitioners; D. S. Marwah, for Respondents.
The District Judge is required to pass a reasoned order while granting permission to file a suit under Section 92, C. P. C. and the petitioner, being the trust, has a right to be heard before the District Judge at the stage of granting or refusing consent.
Headnote:
PUBLIC CHARITIES - SUIT AGAINST TRUST - LEAVE OF COURT - GRANT OF LEAVE - REASONED ORDER - NECESSITY - SECTION 92, C. P. C.
Fact of the Case:
A suit was filed under Section 92, C. P. C. against the present Management of a Gurdwara Prabandhak Committee, a Society registered under Societies Act, alleging various illegalities and refusal to hold elections. The District Judge granted permission to file the suit without stating any reasons.
Finding of the Court:
The order of the District Judge granting permission to file the suit under Section 92, C. P. C. is a non-speaking order and does not disclose the reasons for granting the permission.
Issues: 1. Whether the order of the District Judge granting permission to file the suit under Section 92, C. P. C. is a non-speaking order? 2. Whether the District Judge is required to pass a reasoned order while granting permission to file a suit under Section 92, C. P. C.? 3. Whether the petitioner, being the trust, has a right to be heard before the District Judge at the stage of granting or refusing consent?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The order of the District Judge granting permission to file the suit under Section 92, C. P. C. is a non-speaking order as it does not disclose the reasons for granting the permission. 2. The District Judge is required to pass a reasoned order while granting permission to file a suit under Section 92, C. P. C. because: - The function of granting permission under Section 92, C. P. C. is a judicial function. - A reasoned order is necessary to ensure that the District Judge has applied his mind to the averments in the pleadings and the submissions of the parties. - A reasoned order is necessary to protect the trust from avoidable harassment, which is the main object of Section 92, C. P. C. 3. The petitioner, being the trust, has a right to be heard before the District Judge at the stage of granting or refusing consent because: - The proceeding before the District Judge is a judicial proceeding. - Both parties have a right to be effectively heard before the District Judge. - The concept of natural justice requires that no decision adverse to the parties is made without hearing both the parties.
Final Decision: The impugned order of the District Judge is set aside and the matter is remanded to the District Judge to afford full opportunity of being heard to the parties and pass a reasoned order.
ORDER :- The Gurudwara Prabandhak Committee is a Society registered under Societies Act. It is managing the affairs of the Gurdwara and a Girls School in Delhi Cantonment. The present Managing Committee is in office after this Court directed the election to be held and pursuant to which the elections were held on 11th October, 1981. Respondents Amarjit Singh, H.S.Dhillon, Kartar Singh and Anaib Singh were the members of the earlier Managing Committee. A suit was filed against the said Managing Committee under Section 92, C. P. C. as they had allegedly committed various illegalities and were refusing to hold elections after their term had long expired. The matter came to High Court and the elections were ordered by this Court. The said Amarjit Singh, H.S.Dhillon and Kartar Singh, were not elected and they lost power. Although they had lost the elections, Amarjit Singh and one Anaib Singh (former Presidents) refused to handover the charge, account books or minute books. A contempt application was moved against the said persons by the new Managing Committee. The said proceedings is continuing.
2. The new Managing Committee has removed Anaib Singh from the Chairmanship of the Girls School Committee. He has filed a suit and the same is pending in the District Court. He has preferred an appeal against the order of the Trial Court refusing interim injunction. The appeal is admitted but no interim injunction has been ordered by the Appellate Court.
3. The said four respondents and some others thereafter filed a suit under Section 92, C. P. C. against the present Management. The main grievance in the suit is that Anaib Singh was removed from the Chairmanship and one Santosh Kumar Gupta, T. G. T., was removed from the School. It was also alleged that the accounts were not properly maintained. Through the suit the respondents want the enquiry to be conducted in the affairs of the Society under the new Management. It may be stated that the suit was filed within four months from the new Management coming into power. In the plaint itself a prayer was made seeking permission to file the suit under Section 92, C. P. C. A summons/ notices in the suit was issued to the petitioner. He filed a written statement raising certain preliminary objections and replying the averments on merit. The learned District Judge passed the following order permitting the respondents to file the suit:
" Arguments heard, permission, as required under Section 92, Civil Procedure Code, to file the suit is granted."
4. In this Revision Petition the order of the District Judge is challenged on the following grounds:
(1) The order is a non-speaking order. It is not clear from the order whether the District Judge has considered the objections of the petitioners on the maintainability as well as on the merits of the suit. The order is, therefore, bad in law.
(2) The plaint does not disclose any material on the basis of which a permission can be granted by the District Judge to the respondents under Sec.92 of the C. P. C.
(3) The suit is mala fide filed by persons against whose management the earlier suit was filed, in which the elections were ordered and in which elections they were not returned. The mala fide nature of the suit is further clear from the facts that the respondents had not handed over the charge, or the account books or the minute books and a contempt petition is pending on that account.
(4) The suit is a total abuse of the process of law and an attempt to implicate the management in multiplicity of suit. Anaib Singh has already filed a separate suit against the Management and the same is pending. Santosh Kumar Gupta, a teacher has separate remedy under Delhi Education Act.
5. In reply the respondents submit that Section 92 contemplates that the suit should be filed with the leave of the District Court. This power was conferred on the Court in 1976 in place of the Advocate-General whose consent was necessary for filing the suit before the said amendment. It
