IMPORTANT POINT
A suit under Section 92 C.P.C. must be filed in the Principal Civil Court of original jurisdiction, not in a Civil Judge's Court, and the absence of a trust-deed does not prevent admission.

JUDGMENT :

Subhash Vidyarthi, J.

1. Heard Sri Girish Chandra Sinha Advocate, the learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri Hemant Kumar Pandey, the learned Standing Counsel for the State of U.P.

2. By means of the instant petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have challenged validity of an order dated 13.08.2024 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Pratapgarh in Miscellaneous Case No.160 of 2024, whereby a suit for declaration and perpetual injunction filed under Sections 91 and 92 CPC has been dismissed at the admission stage as not maintainable.

3. The plaintiffs – petitioners filed the aforesaid suit against (1) Manoj Tiwari and (2) ‘The Public-at-Large’, praying that ‘Sachcha Baba Ashram’ situated at village Barachha, Majra Ranjeetpur Chilbila, Tahsil Sadar, District Pratapgarh, be declared to be a Religious Public Endowment, a Committee be formed and Rules be framed for its management. The petitioners pleaded that Late Mahabir Pandey, the father of the plaintif no. 1, was instrumental in setting up the Ashram, whose Grand-father Late Ganga Prasad Pandey had given his land for stay of saints and pilgrims. A saint who was commonly called as ‘Mauni Baba’ came around the year 1948 and stayed there for quite a long period. Mauni Baba had several disciples, including one Smt. Shanti Davi daughter of Ram Naresh Singh, who was a resident of a neighboring village Narayanpur. After death of Mauni Baba, his Samadhi was made near his Kuti (Hut), which is called Sachcha Baba Ashram. Accepting a request made by Smt. Shanti Devi, Sri. Mahabir Pandey had executed an Izazatnama (Licence deed) dated 24.05.1958 permitting use of his bhumidhari land bearing Gata No. 1330 measuring 11 Biswa, alongwith a well, kuti and other constructions. Smt. Shanti Devi died in the year 1993 and the Ashram became uncared for and abandoned. After the plaintiff no. 1 retired from Government Service, he constructed a temple from the year 2003 to 2014 after donating his land adjacent to the land of Sachcha Ashram and he appointed the defendant no. 1 Manoj Tiwari as a salaried priest in the temple. Later on Manoj Tiwari unauthorizedly constructed a residence for himself and he indulges in activities not commensurate with the position of a priest.

4. Admission is a matter between the plaintiff and the Court and the defendants have no right to oppose admission of a suit, yet the Civil Judge entertained objections of the defendants at the admission stage of the suit.

5. The opposite party no.1 stated in his objections that the plaintiff is neither the trustee nor a beneficiary of the trust and, therefore, he cannot file a suit under Section 92 of the Civil Procedure Code as no cause of action has accrued to him and he has no locus standi. It was further stated in the objections that the Civil Court has no jurisdiction over the suit.

6. The defendant no.2 impleaded in the suit was ‘The Public-at-Large’, and a copy of the plaint was served to the District Government Counsel on behalf of the Public-at-Large. The learned District Government Counsel filed objections on behalf of the State government stating that the State Government and Nagarpalika, Belha had not been made parties to the suit and the suit suffered from non-joinder of necessary parties.

7. The trial Court recorded that the plaintiff has filed the suit for a decree of declaration and perpetual injunction but neither he has filed any trust-deed nor does the plaint disclose the identity of the trustees or the Manager of the trust. No Bye-laws/Rules of the trust have been filed and there is no pleading regarding any public charities being administered by the property in dispute. Therefore, the Civil Judge came to a conclusion that the relief sought by the plaintiff does not fall within the purview of Sections 91 and 92 C.P.C. and dismissed the suit as not maintainable at the admission stage.

8. As the suit has been dismissed at the admission stage and the defe