The Sub-Court has jurisdiction under Section 92 of the CPC for public trust matters despite a subsequent registration under the Societies Registration Act.

This petition filed by the revision petitioner/respondents under Section 115 of C.P.C. challenging the order passed by the Sub-court, Kannur on the application filed by the first and sec- ond respondent under Section 92 of CPC for having granted leave to them for filing the suit.

2. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondents 1 to 3 and counsel for the 4^th respondent and counsel for additional respon-

dents 5 and 6.

3. The case of the petitioner is that the respondent filed a suit before the Sub Court, Kannur, in O.P. No. 8/2022 under Section 92 (1) of the Code of Civil Procedure seeking leave of the court to prosecute the suit.

In the said Original Petition (O.P.No.81/2022), respondents 1 to 3 herein (petitioners) sought the following reliefs:

“a. granting leave to the petitioners to institute suit against the respondent Sree Bhakthi Samvardhini Yogam, Talap, Kannur:

b. For declaration declaring that the amendment of the bye- law dated 19-1-2020 of Sree Bhakthi Samvardhini Yogam, Talap, Kannur, is not legal, valid and is against the very ob- ject of the Yogam and is not valid and binding upon the 1st respondent Sree Bhakthi Samvardhini Yogam, Talap, Kan-

nur, c. to dissolve the present Governing Body of 1st respondent Yogam elected on 27-1-2019;

d. To convene General Body meeting and to conduct an election of the office bearers of Sree Bhakthi Samvardhini Yogam, Talap, Kannur;

e. restraining the Respondent No.2 and 3 from acting as the President and Secretary of Sree Bhakthi Samvardhini Yo-

gam, Talap, Kannur;”

4. After considering the application filed by the plaintiffs, the Sub Court granted leave under Section 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure vide order dated 07.08.2023. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner have approached this Court.

5. The counsel for the petitioner strenuously contended that the petition ought to be filed before the District Judge having original jurisdiction as per Section 13 of the Societies Registration Act , 1860. Even otherwise, the petition ought to be filed before the District Court and not before the Sub Court of Kannur District. The society was registered under the , 1860. Therefore, filing the suit under Section 92 ought to be before the District Court. Even the relief sought by the plaintiff squarely falls under the Societies Act. Therefore, the plaintiff can file a suit under provisions of , 1860. Even otherwise, the Sub Court has no jurisdiction to try the suit under of the CPC, and the order granting leave is liable to be set aside. Hence, the petitioner prayed for allowing the petition.

6. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the the petitioner, relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Operation Asha v. Shelly Batra and Ors. reported in MANU/SC/1020/2025 and 2017 KHC 6584 in the case of Terappalli Dyvasahata Kumar v. S.M Kantha Rju (Dead) Thr. Lrs. and Another.

7. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent has strenuously objected to the petition, contending that though the respondent-trust has been registered under the Societies Act sub- sequently, the forming of the trust has continued, and it is a con-

structive trust the character of the trust has not been changed. Therefore, the suit is required to be filed under Section 92 of CPC, which is for a public purpose. Therefore, the suit is required to be filed before the Sub Court, even as per the notification issued by the Government of Kerala for the purpose of the jurisdiction of the court to try the cases under of CPC. Therefore, the Sub Court is having jurisdiction to try the case and grant leave under of CPC. Eve