Back
2018 Supreme(Mad) 1266
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
V.M. VELUMANI, J.
V. Rajkumar (died) & Others – Petitioners
Versus
M/s. R.V. Gurusamy Naidu & Others – Respondents
C.R.P.(PD) Nos. 4862 & 4863 of 2013
Decided On : 12-03-2018
For the Petitioners:R. Aranganathan, Advocate
Headnote:
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – Section 92 – Permanent Injunction – Plaintiffs filed applications I.A. in O.S. and I.A. in O.S. under Section 92 C.P.C. for leave to file the suits – In I.A.No.997 of 2006 in O.S.No.403 of 2006, leave was granted on 23.08.2006. – In O.S.No.421 of 2006, an application under Section 92 C.P.C. has been filed and it was numbered as I.A.No.1017 of 2006 earlier, in which, notice was ordered on 04.09.2006. – While the suits and applications are pending, the plaintiffs filed various applications for various reliefs mentioned therein. – The respondents in C.R.P.No.4862 of 2013 filed I.A.No.600 of 2012 in I.A.No.344 of 2009 (earlier application I.A.No.1017 of 2006) in O.S.No.421 of 2006 to hear I.A.No.344 of 2009 first. – The respondents in C.R.P.No.4863 of 2013 filed I.A.No.601 of 2012 in O.S.No.403 of 2006 to hear I.A.No.716 of 2011 (earlier I.A.No.34 of 2007) to revoke the leave already granted to the plaintiffs at the first instance before hearing the other applications. – Held, It is uniformly held that leave to institute the suit against the Public Charitable or Religious Trust is a pre-condition, there will be no properly instituted suit under law before formal leave is granted, the Court must examine the averments in the plaint to find out the grounds for cause of action and only after satisfying that intervention of the Court is necessary for proper management of the Trust, Court can grant leave to institute the suit. – Only after leave is granted other Interlocutory Application can be considered and orders can be passed. – Judge has held that application for leave to institute the suit and application for revoking leave already granted must be heard first before other applications filed by the petitioners for interim relief pending suit can be heard and decided. – There is no irregularity in the impugned order of the learned Judge as Section 92 of C.P.C, contemplates leave of the Court to institute the suit and decisions referred to above it had been held that leave to institute the suit is a pre-condition and without deciding the application for leave to institute, other Interlocutory Application cannot be heard. – Civil Revision Petitions Dismissed
1. The Civil Revision Petitions are filed against the fair and decretal order dated 03.12.2012 made in I.A.Nos.600 and 601 of 2012 in O.S.Nos.421 and 403 of 2006 on the file of IV Additional District Court, Coimbatore.
2. The petitioners 2 to 4 are the legal heirs of one V.Rajkumar, the first plaintiff in O.S.No.421 of 2006 and O.S.No.403 of 2006 on the file of IV Additional District Court, Coimbatore. Pending Civil Revision Petitions, the said Rajkumar died and the petitioners 2 to 4 were brought on record as legal heirs of the deceased Rajkumar vide order dated 26.02.2018 made in C.M.P.Nos.4954 and 4955 of 2013 in C.R.P.Nos.4862 and 4863 of 2013 respectively. The said Rajkumar and one Manoharan filed two suits O.S.Nos.421 and 403 of 2006 against R.V.Gurusamy Naidu Educational Trust and G.Ramasamy Naidu Charitable Trust, first respondents in C.R.P.Nos.4862 and 4863 of 2013 respectively, respondents 2 and 3 and other defendants claiming permanent injunction restraining the second respondent, the intermiddler from in any way acting as the Trustee or Managing Trustee or Secretary of the first respondents' Trust and for a direction to the respondents 2, 3 & 6th defendant to handover all the records, books of accounts, properties, minute books, bank dealings etc. of the first respondents Trust to the first plaintiff/deceased Rajkumar and other reliefs.
3. The plaintiffs filed applications I.A.No.344 of 2006 in O.S.No.421 of 2006 and I.A.No.997 of 2006 in O.S.No.403 of 2006 under Section 92 C.P.C. for leave to file the suits. In I.A.No.997 of 2006 in O.S.No.403 of 2006, leave was granted on 23.08.2006. In O.S.No.421 of 2006, an application under Section 92 C.P.C. has been filed and it was numbered as I.A.No.1017 of 2006 earlier, in which, notice was ordered on 04.09.2006. While the suits and applications are pending, the plaintiffs filed various applications for various reliefs mentioned therein. The respondents in C.R.P.No.4862 of 2013 filed I.A.No.600 of 2012 in I.A.No.344 of 2009 (earlier application I.A.No.1017 of 2006) in O.S.No.421 of 2006 to hear I.A.No.344 of 2009 first. The respondents in C.R.P.No.4863 of 2013 filed I.A.No.601 of 2012 in O.S.No.403 of 2006 to hear I.A.No.716 of 2011 (earlier I.A.No.34 of 2007) to revoke the leave already granted to the plaintiffs at the first instance before hearing the other applications.
4. According to the respondents, unless applications for granting leave or application to revoke the leave already granted are heard and decided first, other applications cannot be heard. They further contended that I.A.No.344 of 2009 was heard, both the parties advanced arguments and the said application was posted for passing orders. At that stage, the plaintiffs filed applications to reopen the applications. According to the respondents, suits filed by the plaintiffs are vexatious and filed only to harass the respondents. The plaintiffs do not have any public interest and only to vindicate their personal grievances, they have filed the suits. Even during the life time of Founder Trustee, the petitioners had misunderstanding with the Founder Trustee and were not discharging their duties and not attending the Trust Board meetings and they have voluntarily resigned.
5. The plaintiffs filed separate counter affidavits and denied all the allegations made in the affidavits filed in support of the applications and contended that they are exposing public acts. The respondents are mismanaging the Trust by forging and fabricating the documents. All the applications must be heard together, otherwise the plaintiffs will be put to hardship.
6. The learned Judge considering the averments made in the affidavits, counter affidavits and materials available on record, allowed the applications.
7. Against the said order dated 03.12.2012 made in I.A.Nos.600 and 601 of 2012 in O.S.Nos.421 and 403 of 2006, the present two Civil Revision Petitions are filed by the petitioners.
8. The learned counsel for the petitio
