9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the leave granted under Section 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure. 2. Whether the suit was instituted in a representative capacity for public interest. 3. Whether the plaint disclosed a cause of action. 4. Whether the amendment of the plaint can be allowed under Order VI, Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Validity of the Leave Granted Under Section 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure: The plaintiffs, residents of Delhi and followers of Sanatan Dharam, filed a suit under Section 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure against the Badri Bhagat Jhandewalan Temple Society and others, alleging mismanagement and misappropriation of trust properties. The plaintiffs moved Civil Rule 4/82 for permission to sue in a representative capacity. The Court granted permission with the order: "Subject to just exceptions, the permission to sue under section 92 C.P.C. is granted." The defendants contended that the leave was conditional and thus invalid. The Court clarified that the words "subject to just exceptions" were added ex abundanti cautela (by way of abundant caution) and did not render the leave provisional or interim. The Court emphasized that the leave granted was absolute and final, ensuring the defendants' rights to contest the suit were reserved. 2. Whether the Suit was Instituted in a Representative Capacity for Public Interest: The defendants argued that the suit was filed to vindicate personal rights of certain individuals rather than in a representative capacity for public interest. They pointed out that the plaintiffs were associated with a rival faction involved in litigation against the current trustees. The Court noted that the plaintiffs had alleged large-scale misappropriation of trust properties and funds, and prayed for the removal of current trustees and the appointment of new trustees. The Court found that the suit was indeed instituted in a representative capacity for public good, aiming to address the mismanagement and misappropriation of the trust properties. 3. Whether the Plaint Disclosed a Cause of Action: The defendants argued that the plaint did not disclose any cause of action, as the plaintiffs' interest in the trust was not substantial and existing but merely remote and potential. They cited several cases to support their contention that the interest must be real and substantial. The Court distinguished the present case from the cited cases, noting that the plaintiffs were residents of Delhi and regular worshippers at the temple. The Court found that the plaintiffs had a substantial and existing interest in the proper management of the temple and trust properties. The Court held that the plaint disclosed a cause of action sufficient to proceed with the suit. 4. Whether the Amendment of the Plaint can be Allowed Under Order VI, Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure: The plaintiffs filed I.A. 3553/83 seeking to amend the plaint to furnish more particulars about their interest in the trust. The defendants opposed the amendment, arguing that the Court had no jurisdiction to allow an amendment if the plaint did not disclose a cause of action. The Court disagreed with the defendants' contention, stating that Order VI, Rule 17 allows for amendments at any stage of the proceedings to determine the real questions in controversy. The Court emphasized that the provisions for amendment are intended to promote justice, not to defeat it. The Court allowed the amendment, noting that it did not introduce a new cause of action but merely sought to rectify an omission in the original pleadings. Conclusion: The Court rejected the defendants' application (I.A. 383/83) to dismiss the plaint and allowed the plaintiffs' application (I.A. 3553/83) to amend the plaint. The plaintiffs were ordered to pay Rs. 250 as costs to the contesting defendants. The suit was permitted to proceed, addressing the allegations of mismanagement and misappropriation of trust properties in the interest of the public and the beneficiaries of the trust.
|
