The court ruled that a suit filed under Section 92 of the Civil Procedure Code must demonstrate genuine public interest and a community of interest among parties, which the plaintiffs failed to establish.

COMMON JUDGMENT

N.SENTHILKUMAR, J.

The appellants are the plaintiffs and the respondents are the defendants in the Suit. In both the appeals, the appellants and respondents are one and the same.

2.O.S.A.No.115 of 2022 is filed by the appellants against the order dated 08.10.2021 passed by the Learned Judge, in Application No.1844 of 2021 in C.S.Diary No.36935 of 2021. O.S.A.No.123 of 2022 is filed by the appellants against the order dated 03.08.2021 passed by the Learned Judge, in Application No.1844 of 2021 in C.S.Diary No.36935 of 2021.

3.An affidavit in application No.1844 of 2021 in C.S.Diary No.36935 of 2021 was filed with the following prayers:

(a).Permit the appellants/plaintiffs to sue on behalf of and for the benefit of all persons interested in the suit as provided under Order 1 Rule 8 clause 1(a) of the Civil Procedure Code .

(b).Grant leave to the Applicants/Plaintiffs to file the suit under Section 92 of Civil Procedure Code .

Judge's summons in Application No.1844 of 2021 was filed with the following prayer:

“2.Why this Hon'ble Court should not permit the Applicants/Plaintiffs to sue on behalf of and for the benefit of all persons interested in the suit as provided under Order I Rule 8 clause 1(a) of the Civil Procedure Code ?”

4.The appellants filed the Suit under Section 92 CPC, read with Order IV Rule 1 of the Original Side Rules in C.S.Diary No.36935 of 2021 along with the Application No.1844/2021 seeking leave of the Court. The Suit was filed against the respondents/defendants, alleging that substantial funds received by the first defendant, viz., Young Men Christian Association (YMCA) (hereinafter referred to as "YMCA"), a registered society, were diverted and misused by the office bearers/respondents. The appellants raised several allegations of malpractice and misappropriation, allegation of swindling the trust fund, mismanagement, maladministration, financial and functional misdeeds.

5.The following submissions were made by the appellants:

5.1.The first respondent-Association decided to develop one of its properties ad-measuring 19.5 acres of land in Kottivakkam which is the 'A' schedule property in the plaint. Out of the total extent of 19.5 acres, 10 acres are earmarked for development. The 1st respondent entered into an agreement with the 13th respondent/13th defendant for the purpose of development. A Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) was signed on 30.04.2009. Subsequently, the revised MoU, dated 14.11.2015 was filed before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, with the following terms:

“2.Project Development

2.1.That in pursuance of the foregoing and subject to the obligations undertaken by each party hereto and in consideration of the benefits accruing to each party as provided herein, the Developer has agreed to develop the Schedule Property on a 50:50 share basis on the terms and conditions contained herein below and/or such terms and conditions as may be agreed from time to time.

2.2.The parties shall from and out of the total extent of ten (10) acres of the Schedule of Property described in the Annexure B, earmark an extent of Five (5) acres as the Land Owners Share of Schedule Property which is more fully described in the Annexure “C” set out below (herein after 'LSP') and the Developer's portion of the Schedule Property is more fully described in the Annexure “D” s