ORDER

This Civil Revision Petition is filed against the order, dated

25.06.2015, passed in I.A.No.55 of 2013 in O.S.No.19 of 2012, on the file of the III Additional District Judge, Thanjavur @ Pattukkottai.

2.The revision petitioners herein are the plaintiffs and the first respondent herein is the seventh defendant in the Original Suit.

3.The revision petitioners filed a suit in O.S.No.19 of 2012, for recovery of possession and to declare an exchange deed, dated 07.12.1994 as null and void and for permanent injunction. The seventh defendant/ first respondent herein filed a petition in I.A.No.55 of 2013 to revoke the leave granted to the plaintiffs under Section 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure. That petition was allowed by the trial Court. Against the same, the revision petitioners/ plaintiffs approached this Court by way of this Civil Revision Petition.

4.Brief substance of the petition in I.A.No.55 of 2015, is as follows:

The petitioner is the seventh defendant in the Original Suit. The respondents / plaintiffs filed the Suit stating that one Subbaraya Mudaliar has created a Trust in the name of “Subbaraya Mudaliar Trust” by means of a registered Trust deed, dated 17.03.1904 and his descendants had alienated the suit property to the sixth defendant, who in turn, has sold the same to one Jayabharathi from whom the petitioner purchased the property. The defendants 8 to 12 have also purchased some portion of the suit property. The respondents / plaintiffs are claiming themselves as beneficiaries, have filed the suit for declaring that the sale transactions are void and not binding on the Trust and for permanent injunction and to restore the suit property to the first defendant Trust, after recovering the possession of the suit property.

5.The respondents are Strangers and they are not interested in the Trust and they have no locus standi to file the suit and they are not beneficiaries of the alleged Trust at any point of time. The relief claimed in the plaint does not come within the purview of Section 92 of C.P.C., the exparte leave granted by the Principal District Judge, Thanjavur, without considering the reliefs sought for in the claim is incorrect. Hence, the leave granted has to be revoked.

6.Brief substance of the counter in I.A.No.55 of 2013 is as follows:

The petition filed through a power agent is not maintainable. The seventh defendant did not know anything about the existence of the Trust or its object as she is residing in some other village, the relief prayed in the plaint is regarding the Trust. The leave granted under Section 92 (b) of C.P.C., cannot be revoked, the plaintiffs are the beneficiaries of the Trust. In a suit filed under Section 92 of C.P.C, there is no need to issue notice to the defendants. The defendants have no right of audience. The provision under Section 92 of C.P.C., to obtain leave from the Court is to safe guard public Trust from vexatious litigations. The Trust authorities have not filed any petition to revoke the leave and the petition filed by the private individual is not maintainable and the petition is liable to be dismissed.

7.After hearing both sides, the learned III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Thanjavur @ Pattukkottai, allowed the petition. Against the same, the petitioner has preferred this Civil Revision Petition on the following grounds:-

The suit was filed by third parties, who are beneficiaries under the Trust. The Trust is a Public and Charitable Trust founded by one Subbaiya Mudaliyar. His descendants administrated the Trust as per the Trust deed. After the demise of Subbaiya Mudaliyar, his family members administered the Trust. Already the Court granted leave for filing the suit and the defendants also filed their written submissions. Only the seventh defendant has filed this petition for revocation of the leave. The seventh defendant was not a Trustee, she was only a subsequent purchaser of the Trust property and she has no locus standi to file the petition. Other def