1

Court No. - 2

Reserved

A.F.R.

Case :- CIVIL REVISION No. - 139 of 2019

Revisionist :- Ashok Kumar Awasthi And Another

Opposite Party :- Sri Morar Bhai Thakkar And 6 Others

Counsel for Revisionist :- Harsh Vikram,Dharm Vir Jaiswal

Counsel for Opposite Party :- Hari Manish Bahadur Sinha

Hon'ble J.J. Munir,J.

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

2 others v. R. Sethurao and 12 others, 1998 SCC OnLine Mad

292.

2

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