Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!

Scanned Judgements…!

Checking relevance for Swami Shivshankargiri Chella Swami VS Satya Gyan Niketan...

2017 2 Supreme 620 : A suitable question under Section 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 is: ''''Can a suit be instituted against a public trust without the prior leave of the court, and what are the conditions for obtaining such leave?''''

The settled answer is: Yes, a suit can be instituted against a public trust, but only with the prior leave of the court, which is mandatory under Section 92 CPC. The court must examine the averments in the plaint annexed to the application for leave to determine whether the suit falls within the ambit of Section 92. The plaint must be annexed to the application; otherwise, the application is not maintainable. The court is not bound to issue notice to the proposed defendants before granting leave, though it is a rule of caution. The grant of leave does not render the suit bad or non-maintainable even if no notice was issued, and the defendants may apply for revocation of the leave at any time. The court''''s role is to determine whether the allegations in the plaint disclose a cause of action against the trust, and the leave is granted only if the suit is within the scope of Section 92. The District Judge rightly permitted the appellants to institute a suit where the property was transferred to a respondent for a lawful purpose, constituting a trust under Section 3 of the Trusts Act, 1882.Checking relevance for Sugra Bibi VS Hazi Kummumia...

1968 0 Supreme(SC) 381 : A suitable question under Section 92 of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC) is: ''''Whether a suit for the removal of a Mutwalli and appointment of a new Mutwalli, along with the appointment of a Receiver for the management of a Wakf estate, is maintainable under Section 92 CPC when the Wakf is created for a public purpose of charitable or religious nature?''''

The settled answer is: Yes, such a suit is maintainable under Section 92 CPC if it is of a representative character, instituted in the interests of the public and not merely for the vindication of individual or personal rights. The test is whether the Wakf has been created substantially for a public purpose. In this case, the Wakf created by Haji Elahi Bux on November 18, 1936, was held to fall within the purview of Section 92 CPC because a substantial portion of its income is devoted to charitable and religious purposes. The reliefs sought—removal of the Mutwalli and appointment of a new one—fall within clauses (a) and (b) of Section 92(1) CPC, and the suit was deemed to be brought in a representative capacity on behalf of all beneficiaries, not merely to enforce private rights. Therefore, the suit is maintainable under Section 92 CPC only if the consent of the Advocate-General is obtained, as the suit is not maintainable in the absence of such consent.Checking relevance for B. S. Adityan VS B. Ramachandran Adityan...

2004 3 Supreme 423 : A suitable question under Section 92 CPC is: ''''Is it mandatory for the court to give notice to proposed defendants before granting leave to file a suit under Section 92 CPC?'''' The settled answer, as established in R.M. Narayana Chettiar''''s case (supra), is that although it is a rule of caution for the court to normally give notice to proposed defendants before granting leave under Section 92 CPC, the court is not bound to do so. Granting leave without notice does not render the subsequent suit bad in law or non-maintainable, and does not defeat or seriously prejudice the rights of the proposed defendants, as they may still apply for revocation of the leave or challenge the suit''''s maintainability during the course of the proceedings.Checking relevance for Vidyodaya Trust VS Mohan Prasad R...

2008 1 Supreme 264 : A suitable question under Section 92 CPC is: ''''Whether a suit seeking to vindicate personal grievances rather than in the interest of the public trust of a religious or charitable nature is maintainable under Section 92 CPC?'''' The settled answer is: No, such a suit is not maintainable under Section 92 CPC. The object and purpose of the petition, rather than the reliefs claimed, are material. If the suit is merely an attempt to vindicate personal grievances, it does not fall within the scope of Section 92 CPC, even if the trust is of religious or charitable nature. This principle was affirmed in the case where the Supreme Court set aside the order granting leave to file a suit, holding that the suit was not maintainable as it sought to address personal grievances rather than public interest. The court emphasized that for Section 92 CPC to apply, the suit must be of a representative character instituted in the interest of the public, not merely for personal or individual rights.Checking relevance for ASHOK KUMAR GUPTA VS SITALAXMI SAHUWALA MEDICAL TRUST...

2020 3 Supreme 302 : A suitable question under Section 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 is: ''''Can a suit be instituted for the removal of a trustee and appointment of a new trustee in a public charitable trust, where the trust is created for a public purpose of a charitable or religious nature, and the relief sought is for framing a proper scheme of administration to ensure effective management of the trust?''''

The settled answer is: Yes, such a suit can be instituted under Section 92 CPC if the following three conditions are satisfied: (1) the trust is created for a public purpose of a charitable or religious nature; (2) there is a breach of trust or a need for a direction of the Court in the administration of the trust; and (3) the relief claimed falls within one or more of the reliefs enumerated in Section 92(1) of the CPC. Furthermore, the suit must be of a representative character, instituted in the interest of the public and not merely to vindicate personal or individual rights of the plaintiff. In the instant case, the relief prayed for—framing a proper scheme for administration of the trust, including appointment of trustees from the medical profession and the public for proper and effective administration—was not in the nature of vindicating personal rights of the first plaintiff, but was aimed at ensuring the trust’s objects (providing medical services to the public) are fulfilled. Therefore, the suit was maintainable under Section 92 CPC, and the trial court rightly granted leave to institute the suit.

• Applicability of CPC Principles - Even when specific provisions of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC) are not strictly applicable to certain proceedings (e.g., under special statutes or tribunals), courts and tribunals often adopt its underlying principles to ensure fair and just adjudication. For instance, principles like natural justice and procedural fairness are applied even when the statutory framework prescribes different procedures ["2025 0 Supreme(Telangana) 179"], ["2025 0 Supreme(Raj) 2034"].

• Principles of Res Judicata and Procedure - The doctrine of res judicata, as per Section 11 CPC, applies only when a matter has been decided on merits after contest, which may not be relevant in miscellaneous or abated proceedings. Courts have noted that principles of CPC can be invoked to fill procedural gaps, provided they do not conflict with the specific statutory provisions ["2023 0 Supreme(UK) 251"].

• Special Courts and CPC - Statutes establishing special courts or tribunals often specify that they shall follow their own procedures, which should not be inconsistent with natural justice. However, in some cases, courts have held that CPC provisions are applicable insofar as they do not conflict with the special enactment, and general principles of law can guide proceedings ["2025 0 Supreme(Telangana) 179"], ["2025 0 Supreme(Raj) 2034"].

• Writ Proceedings and CPC - Even in writ jurisdiction, where CPC may not be directly applicable, courts recognize that general principles of law and procedural fairness derived from CPC are relevant. Courts have clarified that while procedural provisions like Order 22 may not be strictly binding, they can serve as guiding principles, especially in matters like substitution or death of parties ["A.S.V. Krishnanam Raju vs The Deputy Director Directorate of Enforcement Hyderabad - Appellate Tribunal for Forfeited Property"], ["44"], ["221"].

• Summary Procedure and Order 37 CPC - In commercial suits under Order 37 CPC, the procedure is a complete code in itself, but courts have also emphasized the importance of reasoned judgments and adherence to procedural fairness, applying principles similar to those in CPC even if specific provisions are not directly invoked ["2023 0 Supreme(Del) 633"].

Analysis and Conclusion:While the CPC is not always strictly applicable to proceedings under special statutes, tribunals, or writ jurisdiction, its core principles—such as natural justice, fair hearing, and reasoned judgments—are often applied to ensure justice. Courts and tribunals tend to invoke these principles flexibly, filling procedural gaps without contradicting the statutory framework. This approach underscores that CPC principles serve as a foundational guide for procedural fairness, even when not explicitly mandated, reinforcing the idea that even when CPC is not strictly applicable, its principles can still apply.