Section 92 of CPC aims to protect public Trusts of charitable or religious nature from frivolous litigation and outlines conditions for filing a suit under this section.

1. Iqbal Memorial Trust, Srinagar is registered under Societies’ Registration Act VI 1998 as is evident from the certificate of registration no. 428 S of 1978. The memorandum of the association and the rules relating to the establishment of the Iqbal Memorial Trust, Srinagar (hereafter referred to as the Trust), delineate objects of the Trust and map out functions and the powers of the Trust.

2. The objects of the trust are:

a. to work for the establishment of the educational institutions and professional centres.

b. to foster moral and spiritual values in education.

c. to promote higher education through oriental, national and international languages.

d. to work for the social, cultural, scientific and economic advancement of the society

3. The petitioners 1 and 2 and the respondent no. 1 are founder members of the Trust and are on its governing body. The respondents on 22 October, 2009 filed a suit under Section 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure in the court of Principal District and Sessions Judge, Srinagar, against the petitioners 1 and 2 as contesting defendants and petitioner no. 3 as proforma defendant. The suit was assigned to 3rd Additional District Judge, Srinagar for its disposal. The respondents alongside the suit filed an application for grant of leave to file a suit under Section 92 of CPC. The respondents gave details of their association with the Trust and their interest in the affairs of the Trust. The respondents complained that the assets of the trust were being misused with impunity by petitioners 1 and 2 and omissions and commissions committed by the petitioners 1,and 2 in the administration of the Trust had shaken the confidence of the large sections of the society in general and the respondents in particular in the petitioners. The respondents insisted that in order to save the Trust and the educational institutions run by and under the auspices of the Trust, it had become necessary for the respondents to seek indulgence of the court. The respondents on the grounds urged in the application asked for leave to institute the suit under Section 92 of the CPC.

4. The learned trial judge on 22 October 2009 itself granted tentative permission to the respondents to institute the suit. However, the order was made subject to objections, if any, filed by the petitioners. The petitioners 2 and 3 filed their objections on 9-11-2009. The petitioners denied that the Iqbal Memorial Trust was a `Trust’ in strict sense and insisted that the body though styled as a Trust was essentially a Society, registered under J&K Societies’ Act 1978. The petitioners 1 and 2 pleaded that the administration of the Society was to be run in accordance with the memorandum of association and rules and regulations duly approved by the competent authority. The petitioners after giving an overview of the rules and regulations of the Society as they called it, gave the list of achievements made by the Trust/Society after it came into being. The petitioners disputed bona fides of the respondents in filing the suit and denied that any omission or commission as alleged in the plaint and the application was committed while administering the Trust/Society. The petitioners 1 and 2 gave details of the outstanding contribution made by the petitioners 1 and 2 to the cause of the Trust. The petitioners controverted the claim that the respondents had any prima facie case for grant of permission under Section 92 of Civil Procedure Code, more so when the respondents had failed to array Iqbal Memorial Trust as a party to the suit.

5. The learned trial judge vide order dated 17 April 2010 held the Trust to be a public Trust of religious and charitable nature. Learned trial judge held the respondents to be interested in the Trust. The learned trial judge proceeded to make initial direction dated 22 October 2010 absolute and in effect granted permission to the respondents to file suit under Section 92 against the petitioners.

6. The Trial Court order dated 17 April 2010

Click Here to Read the rest of this document