The court held that only two or more natural persons may file for leave under Section 92 CPC, prohibiting unincorporated associations from seeking such leave, affirming the specific provisions over general definitions.

JUDGMENT :

P.M.MANOJ, J.

This Original Petition is preferred by respondents 1 to 4 in IA No.1 of 2023 in an Unnumbered Original Suit of the year 2023 before the Sub Court, Kottayam. The respondents herein are the petitioners and the remaining respondents in the said Original Suit.

2. The suit was originally instituted by respondents 1 to 4 herein, seeking for a declaration that the amendments made to the Memorandum and Articles of Association of the 1^st defendant, Nair Service Society (NSS), after 1950s are illegal, null and void; and interalia seeking for the removal of trustees, settling a scheme and for other ancillary reliefs. Since the suit was filed under Sec.92 of the Code of Civil Procedure and the matter relate to grant of orders for framing a scheme and further directions under various Clauses of Sec.92 of the Code of Civil Procedure in respect of NSS, a public charitable trust. A suit of the nature contemplated under Section 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure mandatorily requires leave for which IA No.1 of 2023 was preferred in the unnumbered suit before the Principal Sub Court, Kottayam.

3. The petitioners herein preferred an objection in the counter affidavit in the suit stating that the interlocutory application was filed by one natural person and three unincorporated Associations as petitioners 1 to 4. The three unregistered Associations in the interlocutory application, who sought leave of the Court to institute the suit, are the Karayogams of NSS, which are only registered with the Registrar of Karayogams, a functionary under the NSS. Thereby they are neither natural persons nor statutory persons in accordance with any provision of law. The Karayogam can only be reckoned as an unincorporated Association. That will not satisfy the requirement of Sec.92 of CPC which mandates that leave shall be sought either by Advocate General or two or more persons having an interest in the Trust. “Two or more persons” contemplated under Section 92 CPC shall be natural persons.

4. Since the aforementioned issue cropped up as a material defect, petitioners 1 to 4 were required to prefer a petition under Order I Rule 10 read with Section 151 of CPC to implead the persons who signed the plaint and vakalat in the above suit on behalf of petitioners 2 to 4, as additional petitioners/plaintiffs in both the leave petition as well as in the suit, in their individual capacities as well. The trial court, placed reliance on the definition of ‘persons’ under Section 3(42) of the GENERAL CLAUSES ACT , 1897, that ‘Person’ “shall include any Company or Association or body of the individuals, whether incorporated or not.” In the petition seeking leave filed by petitioners 2 to 4, it was contended that an unincorporated association would also come within the contemplation of ‘persons’ under Section 92 CPC. The petitioners in the interlocutory application, being the master of the suit, can be granted permission to implead petitioners 5 to 7 who are natural persons. Thereby that application was allowed. Such a step was taken to rectify the mistake raised as an objection to the leave sought for instituting the suit.

5. The petitioners herein contended that Ext.P9 order, whereby such impleadment was permitted, is not sustainable since the leave sought itself is not maintainable as it does not satisfy the requirement that leave shall be sought by two or more persons, who shall necessarily be natural persons. Importing the definit