SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1957 Supreme(P&H) 8

PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
Bhandari, J.
Kidar Nath Datt
Versus
Kishan Das Bairagi
Civil Revision No. 215 of 1956,
Decided On : JANUARY 10, 1957

In a suit under Section 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the addition of a new defendant that alters the cause of action or enlarges the scope of the suit requires a fresh sanction from the Advocate-General.

Headnote:

CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE - SECTION 92 - ADDITION OF NEW DEFENDANT - SANCTION OF ADVOCATE-GENERAL - NECESSITY - SCOPE OF SUIT ENLARGED - FRESH SANCTION REQUIRED.

Fact of the Case:

Plaintiffs filed a suit under Section 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure against Ramsaran Das & Ram Prakash for the removal of Ramsaran Das from the office of Mahant of a Thakardwara. During the pendency of the suit, Kishan Das applied to be impleaded as a defendant, claiming to be the duly appointed Mahant. The trial court allowed the application despite the plaintiffs' objections.

Finding of the Court:

The court held that the addition of Kishan Das as a defendant would alter the cause of action, enlarge the scope of the suit, and require a fresh sanction from the Advocate-General. The court observed that the new defendant claimed to have been appointed Mahant after the removal of Ramsaran Das, which raised additional issues that were not part of the original suit.

Issues: Whether the addition of a new defendant in a suit under Section 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure requires the sanction of the Advocate-General if it alters the cause of action or enlarges the scope of the suit.

Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the principle that a person cannot maintain a suit to enforce or administer a charitable trust without the sanction of the Advocate-General, as provided under Section 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The court also referred to the test propounded by various judicial authorities, which states that if the addition of a new defendant substantially alters or enlarges the scope of the suit, a fresh sanction from the Advocate-General is necessary.

Final Decision: The court allowed the petition, set aside the order of the trial court, and directed that the name of Kishan Das be removed from the list of defendants. The plaintiffs were awarded the costs of the appeal.

Judgment

Bhandari, J.

1. This petition trader Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure raises the question whether a new defendant can be added in a suit under Section 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure without the previous sanction of the Advocate-General.

2. On the 26th August 1955 Ch. Kidar Nath. Rai Bahadur Gopal Das & certain other persons brought a suit under Section 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure against Ramsaran Das & Ram Pra-kash in which they asked for the removal of Ramsaran Das from the office of Mahant of a Thakardwara. On the 21st November 1955 one Kishan Das presented an application under Rule 10 of Order 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure in which he prayed that he be impleaded as a defendant to the suit as Ramsaran Das had been removed and Kishan Das had been appointed a Mahant by the sewaks on the 23rd June 1853. The trial Court acceded to this request despite the protests of the plaintiffs and impleaded Kishan Das as defendant No. 3. The plaintiffs are dissatisfied with the order and have come to this Court in revision.

3. It is a recognised principle of law that a person is not at liberty to secure the redress of a public wrong by means of a civil suit when he suffers injury in common with the public generally, even though his loss is greater than others, unless a statute expressly empowers him to do so. It is equally, clear that when the duty of enforcing the provisions of a particular statute is entrusted to a particular executive officer, the help of the Court can be invoked only by such executive officer and no other person and that (sic) is not open to a member of the public to intrude upon his functions. In England the Attorney-General who is the protector of charities is normally a necessary party to actions relating to public charities. He may either act alone as the officer of the Crown who is by law entrusted with such duties or he may act on the request of a private individual who thinks the charity is being or has been abused. He has entire control of the action and no amendment can be made without his consent (Shelfords Law of Mortmain 400; Attorney-General v. Fellows, (1820) 1 Jac & W 254 (A), for it is essential that the authority and discretion of the Attorney-General in all these proceedings should be maintained perfectly unbroken, unfettered and unbiassed Attorney-General v. Ironmongers Co., (1840) 2 Beav 313 (B).

4. The law in this country is not widely dif ferent. A member of the public in India has no power in his capacity as such to maintain a suit to enforce or administer a charitable trust, for Section 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure provides that no person shall be at liberty to bring an action for the alleged breach of a charitable or religious trust or for remedying abuse or misapplication of charitable funds without the sanction of the Advo cate-General.

5. The law in regard to the addition of parties is embodied in Order 1. Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure. It empowers the Court in its sound discretion either upon proper motion of a party to the action or upon its own motion to direct that other persons be made parties so that complete Justice may be done and the rights of all finally determined. An amendment cannot however, be allowed if the effect of adding a hew party would be to introduce a new cause of action.

This is particularly so in cases under Section 62 of the Code of Civil Procedure. When the Legislature declared that no suit under this section should be brought without the sanction, of the Advocate-General, the intention obviously was that honest trustees should not be put to the trouble and expense of defending themselves in vexatious suite brought against them by irresponsible officers.

6. Mr. Sarin, who appears for the plaintiffs, has invited my attention to a number of authorities which appear to lay down the proposition that a Court has no power to permit a new party to be added in a suit under Section 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure if the effect of













Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

AI

SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top