A registered society can be treated as a public trust under Section 92 of the CPC if it possesses public trust characteristics, allowing such suits to avoid harassment.

CRP No. 2868 of 2022 PRAYER This Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India praying to set aside the Order made in IA.No. 611 of 2016 in OS.(CFR) 8370 of 2016 dated 25.02.2022 passed by the Principal District Judge, Coimbatore.

CMP No. 15535 of 2022 PRAYER To grant an order of stay of in IA.No. 611 of 2016 in OS.(CFR) 8370 of 2016 dated 25.02.2022 on the file of the Principal District Judge, Coimbatore.

CRP No. 2868 of 2022 For Petitioner(s): Mr.P.S.Sivashanmugasundaram For Respondent(s): Mr.K.Balasubramaniam for RR1 & 2 No appearance for RR3 & 4

ORDER

The revision arises out of the dismissal of I.A. No. 611/2016 filed by the defendants challenging the grant of leave in I.A. No. 611/2016 to the plaintiffs to institute the suit under Section 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure .

2. Heard Mr.P.S.Sivashanmugasundaram, learned counsel for the revision petitioner and Mr. K.Balasubramaniam, learned counsel for the respondents 1 &

2.

3. The primordial ground of attack to the order of the Trial Court granting leave to the plaintiffs to institute the suit under Section 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure is that the plaintiff is a registered society and is not a public trust, which alone is amenable to the jurisdiction of the civil court under of the .

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner would further state that the plaint does not disclose any evidence in support of the allegations that had been made in the plaint and supporting documents are also not filed, and Section 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure cannot be invoked to harass the defendants. He would also state that the very object of of the is only to protect charitable and public trusts, and the same cannot be extended to a society, as in the instant case.

5. He would also point out that the allegations with regard to the Kalyana Mandapam and school run by the Society and contend that there is no Kalyana Mandapam which is in existence as alleged by the plaintiff, and therefore the plaintiffs have come to court with a false case, and the trial court has erroneously granted leave to institute the suit under section 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure . Therefore, he prays for the revision being allowed, setting aside the order granting leave to the plaintiffs, to institute the suit under section

92 of the Code of Civil Procedure .

6. Per contra, Mr. K.Balasubramaniam, learned counsel for the respondents 1 & 2/plaintiffs 1 and 2, states that at the stage of obtaining leave from the court, it is not necessary for the plaintiffs to file documents, and it is also not necessary for the court to conduct a roving enquiry into the merits of the allegations made. It is sufficient for the court to see only, whether the plaintiffs are entitled, prima facie for leave, to institute the suit under Section 92 of CPC. The learned counsel has also placed reslience on the recent judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Operation Asha vs. Shelly Batra and Others , reported in2025 SCC OnLine 1605.

7. I have carefully considered the submissions advanced by the learned counsel on either side.

8. It is not in dispute that the plaintiff's complaint is about mismanagement of a society which is not a public trust. The language employed under Section 92 of the CPC, no doubt, indicates that the said Section would apply only to trusts. However, the issue has come to be tested by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the Operation Asha Case (cited supra) and the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the suit under , being a representative suit of a special nature, obtaining 'grant of leave' from the court before the suit can be proceeded w