Hon’ble Krishna Murari, J.—By means of this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have challenged the order dated 3.4.2008 passed by the District Judge, Ghaziabad in proceedings under Section 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short ‘the Code’) allowing the applications moved by respondents 9 and 10, under Order I, Rule 10 of the Code for their impleadment, under Section 151 seeking injunction and Order XXVI, Rule 9 for appointment of a Commissioner.

2. Facts giving rise to dispute are as under :

Sri Vir Digambar Jain Dharamshala and Sri Mahavir Jain Dharmarth Aushadhalai is stated to be a private trust created through a trust deed executed by one late Lala Nanhe Mal Jain. Petitioner No. 2 claims to be the managing trustee of the said Trust. An application under Section 92 of the Code was moved by opposite party Nos. 1 to 4 seeking permission to file a suit on the allegations that it was a public trust with a prayer to remove the trustee and to frame a scheme of administration for managing the affairs of the trust and for giving custody of the trust property to the Managing Committee and to submit the accounts. The proceeding was registered as Misc. case No. 48 of 2004 and was contested by the petitioners. During the pendency of the proceedings respondents 9 and 10 filed writ petition No. 9014 of 2008 in the nature of a public interest litigation alleging that the trust was being mismanaged. This Court, finding that proceedings under Section 92 of the Code were pending, disposed of the petition with the liberty to the applicants therein to join in the said proceedings. Thereafter, respondents 9 and 10 moved an application under Order I, Rule 10 of the Code seeking impleadment in Misc. case No. 48 of 2004. An application under Section 151 of the Code for maintaining status quo with respect to the trust property and another application under Order XXVI, Rule 9 of the Code for appointment of a Commissioner to make inspection and submit details of the trust property was also moved. The applications were resisted by the petitioners by filing objections. District Judge vide order dated 3.4.2008 allowed all the three applications.

3. I have heard Sri Rakesh Pande for the petitioners, Sri Anoop Trivedi for respondent Nos. 1 to 4 and Sri Ravi Agarwal for respondents 9 and 10.

4. Counsel appearing for the respondents do not propose to file any counter affidavit and with the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the writ petition is being finally disposed of at this stage.

5. It has been urged by learned counsel for the petitioners that since the application seeking permission to institute the suit is pending till date and permission having not been granted, the suit cannot be said to have been instituted as yet as such the application for impleadment, injunction and issuance of a Commission have been wrongly and illegally allowed inasmuch as the said power can only be exercised by the Court in a pending suit.

6. In reply, it has been submitted that the impleadment application was moved in pursuance to the liberty given by this Court while disposing of the writ petition filed by respondents 9 and 10 and the same has rightly been allowed. It has further been submitted that invoking inherent power under Section 151 of the Code the Court has directed the parties to maintain status quo in respect of the trust property in order to prevent waste and damage of the same during the pendency of the proceedings and the Commissioner has been appointed to submit a report about the details of the trust property so that the injunction order may be effectively made operative on the same.

7. I have considered the rival submission.

8. The question which arises for consideration is whether the Court has jurisdiction to entertain and pass orders on such applications in proceedings under Section 92 of the Code seeking leave of the Court to file suit. Section 92(1) relevant for the purposes of the case reads