Point of Law: It is true that power under Section 92 CPC in respect of the same trust is exerciseable once and is not to be invoked by a fresh suit over and over again. A decree under Section 92 is result of a class action, where those who apply for leave and become plaintiffs represent a class of persons, all of whom are bound by the outcome.

JUDGMENT :

1. In this case, Mr. H.M.B. Sinha, learned Counsel for the respondents has raised a preliminary objection in opposition to the motion to admit this revision to hearing. He says that this revision is not maintainable. Mr. Sinha submits that the order impugned is an order granting leave under Section 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short, ‘CPC’), which is revisable. According to him, it is almost an administrative order and a matter between the applicant for leave and the Court. Therefore, the revisionists, who are opposite parties nos.4 and 5 to the Application under Section 92 CPC, are not entitled to maintain this revision. They can contest the suit, that comes into existence upon grant of leave by the order impugned.

2. Reliance has been placed by the learned Counsel for the respondents upon the decision of the Supreme Court in Ghat Talab Kaulan Wala v. Baba Gopal Dass Chela Surti Dass (Dead) by LR Ram Niwas, (2020) 13 SCC 50 and particularly upon the decision of their Lordships of the Supreme Court in B.S. Adityan and others v. B. Ramachandran Adityan and others, (2004) 9 SCC 720.

3. Learned Counsel has also drawn the attention of this Court to a decision of our Court in Ambrish Kumar Singh vs. Raja Abhushan Bran Bramhshah and others, AIR 1989 All 194. Also, relied upon by the learned Counsel for the respondents, to say that this revision is not maintainable is the decision of the Madras High Court in G.R. Govindarajulu and Sons Charities, Coimbatore and others v. R. Sethurao and others, 1998 SCC OnLine Mad 292.

4. On the other hand, learned Counsel for the revisionists, Mr. Dharm Vir Jaiswal, has submitted that the objection as to maintainability is ill-founded. He submits that the general principle that an order granting leave under Section 92 CPC is not revisable may be true, but not in a case, where the grant of leave would amount to an abuse of process of Court. He particularly submits that relating to this trust an earlier suit being Original Suit no.8 of 1995, under Section 92 CPC was instituted by the revisionist, seeking to frame a scheme for the management of the trust and to appoint him a trustee. He has been appointed as the Chief Trustee by virtue of the decree dated 24.12.2001 passed in O.S. no.8 of 1995, which too is a class action with a judgment that binds all persons holding an interest in the instant public religious trust. The decree there has appointed the revisionist as the Chief Trustee and the Sarvarakar, besides Brahmadatt Mishra, Gyan Prakash, Vimal Chandra Awasthi and B.L. Narang as the other trustees.

5. In this background, if fresh leave under Section 92 CPC were granted, it would amount to a parallel invocation of the Court’s jurisdiction under Section 92 CPC, where it has already been invoked and a scheme for the management of the trust is in force. If the respondents, who have applied for leave feel that the revisionists or the other trustees are abusing their office or mismanaging the affairs of the trust, they can apply to the Court that passed the decree dated 24.12.2001 in O.S. no.8 of 1995 to remove them and appoint other trustees, or may be for a modification of the scheme to manage the trust. In no case, however, leave could be granted afresh under Section 92 CPC in respect of same trust, where the said jurisdiction has been once exercised by the Court. The exercise of powers, therefore, is an utter abuse of process of Court and the impugned order deserves to be set aside.

6. I have considered the rival submissions. It is true that the power under Section 92 CPC in respect of the same trust is exerciseable once and is not to be invoked by a fresh suit over and over again. A decree under Section 92 is the result of a class action, where those who apply for leave and become plaintiffs represent a class of persons, all of whom are bound by the outcome. Once the Court frames a scheme or appoints a Board of Trustees, it is always open to one of the represented community or class