RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
Shiv Kumar Sharma, J.
S.K.S. Rangacharyulu & Anr. - Appellant
Versus
Kailash Vyas & Ors. - Respondent
S.B.C. Revision No. 1088 of 1995.
Decided On : 16-05-1997
CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE - SECTION 92 - ORDER GRANTING LEAVE TO FILE SUIT - REVISABILITY - ORDER GRANTING LEAVE TO FILE SUIT UNDER SECTION 92, CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE IS A JUDICIAL ORDER AND IS REVISABLE UNDER SECTION 115, CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE.
Fact of the Case:
Plaintiffs filed a suit against defendants for mismanagement of a temple trust. They obtained leave from the court to file the suit under Section 92 of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC). The defendants challenged the order granting leave, arguing that it was not revisable under Section 115 of the CPC.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the order granting leave to file a suit under Section 92 of the CPC is a judicial order and is revisable under Section 115 of the CPC. The court reasoned that the order decides the objections raised by the defendants and grants leave to the plaintiffs, and therefore, it is a judicial order.
Issues: Whether an order of trial Court granting permission to file suit under Section 92 of the Civil Procedure Code is revisable under Section 115, C.P.C?
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on several precedents to support its holding. In Raju Pillai v. V.P. Paramsivam, AIR 1995 Madras 253, the Madras High Court held that an order of Court granting permission to file suit against trust under Section 92 is an administrative order and not a judicial one. However, the court in the present case disagreed with this view, holding that the order granting leave to file a suit under Section 92 of the CPC is a judicial order.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the revision petition, holding that the order granting leave to file a suit under Section 92 of the CPC is a judicial order and is revisable under Section 115 of the CPC.
(a) The plaintiff-non-petitioners (for short the plaintiffs) instituted suit against the defendant-petitioners (for short defendants) in the Court of the District Judge, Kota stating therein that a registered trust was created for temple of Shri Jagdish ji situated in Rampura Kota, for the proper management of the temple properties. Defendant S.K.S. Rangacharyulu was appointed as working Trustee but for the management of the temple a committee was constituted. The defendants, it was averred is given the said committee and started selling the temple property. They instead of arranging Seva Puja, started spending the income of temple for their own pleasure. Therefore, it was prayed that the defendant S.K.S. Rangachal-yulu be removed from the office of trustee and new trustee be appointed for the proper management of the temple property. Along with the suit, application under Section 27, CPC, seeking leave to file suit was also moved by the plaintiffs.
(b) The learned Additional District Judge No. 2, Kota, where the suit was transferred, allowed the said application vide order dated July 19, 1995. The validity of this order that the defendants have now questioned in the instant revision.
Rival Contentions
".....The mere fact that the amended section now requires leave of the Court in place of consent by the Advocate-General does not seem to change the nature of the order of leave made by the Court. In making such an order the Court, like the Advocate General earlier, would no doubt have to apply its mind but that is only to satisfy itself
R.M. Narayana Chettiar v. N. Lakshmanan Chettiar AIR 1991 SCC 221
AI
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.