9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Whether it is obligatory for the court to give an opportunity to the respondents to show cause against the grant of leave under Section 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. 2. Whether leave granted without such opportunity is void. Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Obligation to Give Opportunity to Respondents: The appellants filed a suit under Section 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, seeking to frame a scheme for a public charitable trust. They also applied for leave to institute the suit without issuing any notice to the respondents. The court granted leave and issued summons to the respondents. The respondents later filed an application to revoke the leave on the grounds that they were not given an opportunity to be heard. The learned Subordinate Judge dismissed this application, stating that the grant of leave was an administrative act and did not require notice to the respondents. The Madras High Court, however, allowed the respondents' revision petitions, setting aside the leave and holding that the suit could not be entertained without such leave. The High Court emphasized that the grant of leave under Section 92 was a pre-condition for instituting a suit and that the defendants should be given an opportunity to show cause against the grant of leave. 2. Validity of Leave Granted Without Opportunity: The appellants argued that requiring the court to give an opportunity to the defendants before granting leave would cause delays and potentially defeat the ends of justice, especially in cases requiring urgent relief. They contended that the defendants could always apply to revoke the leave if they had any grievances. The respondents, on the other hand, maintained that the grant of leave was a material requirement for maintaining the suit and that the court needed to consider various aspects, such as whether the suit was of the kind contemplated under Section 92, whether the plaintiffs were fit to institute a representative suit, and whether the allegations were baseless or frivolous. They argued that these considerations necessitated giving the defendants an opportunity to show cause against the grant of leave. Relevant Provisions and Judicial Precedents: Section 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, requires that leave of the court be obtained before instituting a suit for the reliefs set out in the section, such as removing or appointing trustees, directing accounts, and settling a scheme. Section 104(1)(ffa) provides for appeals against orders refusing leave to institute such suits. The legislative history indicates that the requirement for leave was introduced to prevent harassment of public trusts by reckless or frivolous suits. The Supreme Court noted that the High Courts had taken different views on whether notice to the defendants was required before granting leave. Some High Courts, such as Punjab and Haryana and Kerala, held that the grant of leave was an administrative act not requiring notice to the defendants. Other High Courts, like Madras and Delhi, held that leave granted without notice was void and that the trust had a right to be heard before the grant or refusal of leave. Supreme Court's Conclusion: The Supreme Court concluded that while it is desirable as a rule of caution to give notice to the defendants before granting leave under Section 92, it is not a statutory requirement. The court held that the absence of notice does not render the leave void or the suit non-maintainable. The court emphasized that the grant of leave does not seriously prejudice the defendants' rights, as they can apply for revocation of the leave. The court also noted that an appeal lies only against the refusal of leave and not against its grant, indicating that the proposed plaintiffs, not the defendants, could be prejudiced by the refusal. Final Judgment: The Supreme Court allowed the appeals, set aside the High Court's judgment, and directed the Trial Court to dispose of the application for revocation of leave on merits and in accordance with law. There was no order as to costs incurred so far.
|
