The court emphasized the representative nature of a suit under Section 92 CPC and the conditions for invoking Section 92 CPC, highlighting the binding effect on interested parties.

The five plaintiffs filed a suit in C.S.No.1014 of 2008 under Section 92 of CPC for framing a scheme for management and administration of the first respondent Temple, which according to them is a public trust and also to appoint a Board of Trustee for the first defendant temple.

2. This Court, by an order, dated 23.09.2008 held that the applicants/plaintiffs were members of the Jain community and have contributed their mite to the development of the temple. They have also shown that they are interested in the welfare of the temple. The permission to file a suit under Section 92 of CPC was granted.

3. It was stated that notice was sent to the first respondent and other representatives. When they came back unclaimed the service was held to be sufficient. As there was no representation on their side and the service of one Heerachand Nimani was awaited and the second respondent was already served with notice and also the first respondent having served with notice but chose not to represent, the leave to sue was granted.

4. The suit was admitted on 310. 2008. Pending the suit, an applicants filed O.A.No.575 of 2009 for an interim injunction restraining the respondents from taking up the agenda relating to the passing and adoption of accounts of the first respondent trust in the meeting scheduled to be held on 14.06.2009. However, this Court by an order dated 11.06.2009 rejected the said plea.

5. O.A.No.1153 of 2008 is filed seeking to appoint a Receiver to manage and administer the first respondent Trust, pending disposal of the suit.

6. O.A.No.1154 of 2008 is for an order of an interim injunction, restraining the respondents from functioning as Working Committee members of the first respondent Trust, pending disposal of the suit.

7. A.No.4970 of 2008 is filed seeking to appoint a Chartered Accountant and to direct him to scrutinise the books of accounts, vouchers, bills and other documents of the first respondent Trust from the year 1995 and to submit a detailed report before the court.

8. A.No.5265 of 2008 is to revoke the leave granted by this court in A.No.3320 of 2008, dated 29. 2008.

9. It was stated that the first defendant temple is a public trust dedicated for worship by the Jain community living in the areas of Choolai, Vepery and Purasaiwalkam. Therefore, the said trust was to be streamlined and the management brought to books to ensure a neat and efficient administration of the first defendant temple. The income of the temple had increased by several folds by way of cash and jewels over a period of time. Unless proper accounting and maintenance of books is ensured, the persons in the management would continue to mismanage the finances of the temple and its properties. In the present case, the erstwhile Potedar Prakash Chand Golecha had failed to submit the books of accounts for verification by the members of the Sangh. He produced the accounts for the period 1998-2001 before the Mediators and there were several discrepancies, which were not explained by him. Subsequent to 2001 upto this date of filing of the suit, no meeting of general body had passed any account. They are also depositing the temple funds to the supporters of the present committee.

10. In opposition to the applications filed by the plaintiffs, the first respondent temple represented by its committee member Rajendra Kumar Kochar has filed a counter affidavit. It was sated that a similar proceedings was launched by one Harak Chand Gulecha and T.Shantilal Gulecha against the first respondent temple on similar allegations and A.No.3578 of 2003 was filed by them, seeking leave of this court for initiating a suit under Section 92 CPC. The said application was resisted by the first respondent temple. This Court, by an order, dated 12. 2003, refused to grant leave to institute the suit. Thereafter, an appeal was filed in OSA No.88 of 2004 by the said individuals.

11. The Division Bench, by its order, dated 7. 2008, came to the conclusion that since Sr