JUDGMENT

(Common Prayer: Civil Revision Petitions are filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, to call for the records to pertaining to the order dated 03.06.2015 passed in I.A.No.82 of 2014 in O.S.No.42 of 2014, I.A.No.302 of 2015 in O.S.No.106 of 2014, I.A.No.206 of 2015 in O.S.No. 110 of 2014 and I.A.No.303 of 2015 in O.S.No.111 of 2014 on the file of the Second Additional District cum Sessions Judge, Thanjavur and set aside the same.)

Common Order:

1. All the revision petitions arise out of a common order of the trial Court, wherein applications filed by the defendants for rejection of plaint were dismissed.

2. The contesting respondents in all revision petitions have filed O.S.Nos.42, 106, 110, 111 of 2014 on the file of the II Additional District and Sessions Court, Thanjavur for the relief of framing a scheme for four different trusts along with other reliefs. Along with the said suits, the plaintiff had filed I.A.Nos.151, 109 & 110 of 2014 in O.S.Nos.106, 110 & 111 of 2014, respectively under Section 92 of the Civil Procedure Code (hereinafter referred to as 'CPC' for the sake of brevity) seeking leave of the Court to institute the said suits. However, from the records, it could be seen that no application under Section 92 CPC seeking leave of the Court has been filed along with the plaint in O.S.No.42 of 2014. The trial Court, instead of issuing notice to the other side in the applications filed under Section 92 CPC, had directly numbered the suits and issued notice to the defendants in the suits.

3. The defendants have filed I.A.Nos.82 of 2014 & 302, 206 and 303 of 2015 seeking rejection of plaint on the ground that without allowing Section 92 applications, the suits have been numbered and therefore, they have to be rejected.

4. The plaintiffs have contended that they have filed applications under Section 92 CPC in all suits and when the said applications were pending, petitions under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC are not maintainable. The trial Court accepted the said view and dismissed all the applications seeking rejection of plaint. Challenging the said orders, the present revision petitions have been filed.

5. According to the learned counsel for the revision petitioners, grant of leave by the Court under Section 92 CPC is made before numbering the suits as against the Public Charitable Trusts. Therefore, without granting such leave, the suits could not have been numbered. The trial Court had erroneously dismissed the applications filed under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC without considering the legal aspect of obtaining leave under Section 92 of CPC.

6. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondents/plaintiffs contended that, they along with suits, have filed Section 92 CPC applications. However, the trial Court has proceeded to number the suits and they cannot be found fault for the fault of the Court and the plaints filed by the parties for framing of a scheme for administration of trusts cannot be rejected.

7. I have carefully considered the submissions made on either side and perused the records.

8. Perusal of the plaints in all four suits would reveal that apart from the prayer of framing a scheme for the administration of four different trusts, other prayers have also been sought for by the plaintiffs. Therefore, it is clear that leave of the Court has to be obtained under Section 92 CPC. Even though some of the prayers relate to some personnel disputes between the parties, the main prayer revolves around framing of schemes by the trial Court. Therefore, it is mandatory to obtain leave of the Court before numbering the said suits.

9. Admittedly, the plaintiffs had filed Section 92 applications in O.S.Nos.106, 110 and 111 of 2014 and they have been numbered and pending. The trial Court without deciding the said applications on merits, had directly numbered the suits. The applications filed under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC were also dismissed solely on the ground that Section 92 applications are pending. This procedure adopted