A party seeking to sue under Section 92 must establish a clear and substantive interest in the trust being challenged; mere affiliation is insufficient.

ORDER :

P.B. BALAJI, J.

In a suit in O.S.No.103 of 2012 filed under Section 92 of CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE , an interlocutory application in I.A.No.2 of 2022 has been taken out under Order 1 Rule 8(3) r/w 10(2) and Section 151 of CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE to implead the petitioners 1 and 2 in the present revision, as plaintiffs 4 and 5 in the main suit and the trial Court dismissed the said application. Aggrieved by the same, the proposed parties have chosen to prefer the present Civil Revision Petition in CRP No.3738 of 2022.

2. CRP No.3740 of 2022 has been filed against the order in I.A.No.348 of 2012, revoking the leave granted to sue under Section 92 of Code of Civil Procedure.

3. I have heard Ms.J.Prithvi, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr.Ramesh, for Mr.M.Guruprasad, learned counsel for the respondents 1 to 9 and the respondents 10 and 11 have been given up by the revision petitioners already.

4. Learned counsel for the revision petitioners would take me through the plaint filed in O.S.No.103 of 2012 and also the application and the supporting affidavits filed in I.A.No.2 of 2022. According to the learned counsel for the revision petitioners, the suit was taken on file after leave was granted by the Court. However, pending the suit, two of the plaintiffs viz., plaintiffs 2 and 3 have not pressed the suit, leaving the sole plaintiff to prosecute the suit. Learned counsel for the petitioners would also invite my attention to the order passed by this Court in CRP (NPD)No.2302 of 2018. It is pursuant to the liberty granted by this Court in CRP No,2302 of 2018, I.A.No.2 of 2022 came to be filed by the revision petitioners, where, the petitioners, claiming to be the interested plaintiffs, sought to join the sole plaintiff and continue the suit in O.S.No.103 of 2012.

5. The respondents have filed their objections to the said request of the proposed plaintiffs and after due enquiry, the trial Court, proceeded to dismiss the application in I.A.No.2 of 2022. Aggrieved by the same, the present revision in CRP No.3738 of 2022 has been filed.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioners would state that the suit itself came to be numbered in the year 2012 after obtaining leave from the Court and only because of subsequent circumstances in and whereby two of the plaintiffs did not choose to proceed with the suit, the sole plaintiff was left alone and could not prosecute the suit, which has been filed, noticing serious irregularities in the administration of the first respondent Trust. Learned counsel would further submit that in the light of the order passed by this Court in CRP No.2302 of 2018, the trial Court ought to have allowed the application and tested whether the proposed plaintiffs were interested parties or not during trial and after evidence was recorded instead of summarily rejecting their affidavits, as not being satisfactory and therefore, the learned counsel prays that the revisions may be allowed.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioners relied on the Division Bench decision of this Court in the case of C.Kalahasti vs R.Sukhantharaj reported in 88 LW 578, where the Division Bench of this Court held that old students of a College would be interested in the proper administration of the entire trust and as old students, they stand distinguished from the generality of the community and that association gives them a particular direct and distinctive interest in the public charitable trust.

8. Learned counsel for the petitioners also relied on the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of