ORDER :- This civil revision petition arises against the order and decretal order dated 26-4-1999 made in I.A. No. 511 of 1996 in O.S. No. 556 of 1991 on the file of the Principal Sub-Judge, Tiruchirapalli.

2. The plaintiffs 1 and 3 are the Revision Petitioners in a suit filed by them against the respondents 1 and 2 (a) for the removal of the second Respondent/second defendant (Thiru. R. Veeramani) as the Secretary of the first Respondent/first defendant institution (Periyar Self Respect Propaganda Institution, Tiruchirapalli) and to appoint a new Secretary in his place; (b) vesting all properties of the first respondent Institution detailed in the schedule with the new management; (c) directing accounts and enquiries; (d) to settle a scheme for the proper conduct of the institution and have the same administered under the control of the Sub-Court, Trichy.

3. The said suit was filed under Section 32 of C.P.C.; construing the first respondent/first defendant as a Trust.

4. Section 92, CPC will be applicable in case of any alleged breach of any express or constructive trust created for public purposes of a charitable or religious nature or where a direction of the Court is deemed necessary for the administration of any such trust. In that event the Advocate General or two or more persons in the Trust and having obtained the leave of the Court may institute a suit under that provision for similar remedies provided thereunder; for example removing any Trustee, appointing a new Trustee, vest any property in a Trustee, directing the removed Trustee to deliver possession of any Trust property, directing accounts and enquiry and also settling scheme etc.

5. As a matter of fact, leave was originally granted for instituting the suit on the ground that the first defendant/Institution was a Trust. As against the said granting of leave by order of Court in I.A. No. 567 of 1988, this Respondents preferred Revision is C.R.P. No. 2386 of 1991, which was dismissed by this Court by its order dated 15-6-1992.

6. Thus it is that the following was observed in the order of the above said C.R.P.:-

"Thus, even from the stand taken by the Petitioners/defendants, it had been accepted that the 1st Petitioner/first defendant is a public trust and as pointed out earlier, the objects are charitable and the 1st petitioner would undoubtedly fall within the scope of a public trust for charitable purposes as contemplated under Section 92 of the Code". It was also found that the Respondents/plaintiffs were persons interested in the proper administration and management. And therefore the revision against the order of granting of leave was dismissed.

7. The learned counsel for the Revision Petitioners/Plaintiffs submitted that nowhere it has been admitted that the first Respondent/first defendant Institution is a Trust. It was further submitted that the order in the above C.R.P. was only in respect of the correctness of the leave granted under Section 92, CPC ; but what we are now dealing with is about the maintainability of the suit. According to the counsel, any order in respect of the issue of leave to grant may not form an impediment on the principle of res judicata in respect of the question regarding the maintainability of the suit. For this purpose, reliance was made upon in a case law reported in Mitsubishi France v. Nyveli Lignite Corporation Ltd. (AIR 1985 Mad 300). In that case the Division Bench observed that the initial plea of the defendant that the High Court had no territorial jurisdiction as the defendant was a Foreigner and the findings thereon will never act as a bar by principle of constructive res judicata by the defendants subsequent plea of want of jurisdiction. The following observation was made therein.

"The plea of res judicata is a wholesome plea in order to avoid multiplicity of proceedings and is based on the principle that no party shall be vexed over the same cause of action twice. The principle of res judicata would apply not only to succe

Click Here to Read the rest of this document