Hon’ble Pankaj Mithal, J.—Ram Kishan Dass, Har Kishan Das Saraogi is a public trust of religious and charitable nature created for the Hindu public. The said trust owned properties mentioned in Schedules ‘A’ and ‘B’ of the proposed plaint i.e. house Nos. 165, 167 situate at M.G.Road, Calcutta in Schedule ‘A’ and house No. 1/67 Peepal Mandi, Agra in Schedule ‘B’.

2. The two applicants/opposite parties both residents of Agra applied for leave of the Court at Agra to institute a suit under Section 92 C.P.C. for removal of the existing trusties two in number, both residents of Calcutta and for appointment of new trusties as well as for directing rendering of accounts of the trust. The application for grant of leave to file proposed plaint was opposed by the defendant/revisionists herein. One of the objection was that the property at Agra is no more in existence as it has been sold under the orders of the Calcutta High Court dated 28.4.1988, therefore, the application for leave is not maintainable.

3. The Additional District Judge, Agra vide judgment and order dated 12.8.1997 allowed the application and granted permission to file the suit under Section 92 C.P.C. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the defendants have preferred this civil revision under Section 115 C.P.C.

4. I have heard Sri Ravi Kiran Jain, Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Kshitij Shailendra for the defendant/revisionists and Sri B.D.Mandhyan, Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Tarun Gaur for the plaintiff (applicant)/opposite parties.

5. The basic argument of Sri Jain is that the impugned judgment and order is without jurisdiction. The Court at Agra had no jurisdiction to grant leave for institution of suit under Section 92 C.P.C. as no part of the property of the trust was situated in Agra at the relevant time.

6. Sri Mandhyan has countered the above argument by submitting that in fact one of the properties of the trust was at Agra and the illegal sale of the same would not affect the jurisdiction of the Court. He has further submitted that though no relief in respect of the property sold has been claimed in the proposed suit, nonetheless the action of the trustees in its sale was determintal to the trust as well as public at large therefore, a suit under Section 92 C.P.C. with the leave of the Court is maintainable.

7. Section 92 C.P.C. provides that where in a trust created for public charitable or religious nature there is any breach of such trust, the Advocate General or two or more persons having an interest in the trust with the leave of the Court may institute a suit for a decree for the purposes specified therein including that of removal and appointment of trustees and rendering of the accounts. Thus, from the plain language of the aforesaid provision it is apparent that two persons having interest in the trust have a right to maintain a suit under Section 92 C.P.C. with the leave of the Court. However, the moot question which arises for consideration is as to which Court is empowered to grant leave for institution of such suit or as to before which Court such a suit would be maintainable.

8. In order to answer the above question, it would again be beneficial to refer to the provision of Section 92 C.P.C. itself which also provides the forum where such a suit is to be instituted. It lays down that a suit may be instituted in the principal Civil Court of original jurisdiction or in any other Court empowered in that behalf by the State Government within the local limits of whose jurisdiction the whole or any part of the subject-matter of the trust is situate. Thus, such a suit can be instituted either:

(1) in the competent Court of original jurisdiction; or

(2) in any other Court empowered in that behalf by the State Government;

provided that such a Court ought to be one within whose local limits of jurisdiction the whole or any part of subject-matter of the trust is situate.

9. This above second part of Section 92 C.P.C. is most important and relevant f