HAVINAL SARANABASAPPA Vs. A.MAHESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The captioned civil revision petition is filed challenging the order dtd. 9/7/2013 passed in Misc.case No.3/2013.

(2.) The respondents have filed the scheme suit under Sec. 92 seeking to appoint the first plaintiff as Trustee and to direct the defendant to furnish the accounts of the Trust for scrutiny. Having filed the suit under Sec. 92 pf CPC, it appears an application was filed seeking leave of the Court to prosecute the scheme suit under Sec. 92 of CPC. This was strongly resisted by the petitioner contending that the respondents-plaintiffs having regard to the nature of the relief sought in the plaint cannot maintain the scheme suit under Sec. 92 of CPC. The Court below having heard the parties to the suit has allowed the petition filed under Sec. 92 of CPC permitting the respondents-plaintiffs to institute the suit under Sec. 92 of CPC. The said order is under challenge.

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioner would vehemently argue before this Court and contend that the nature of relief sought in the plaint would clearly indicate that the respondents-plaintiffs are seeking remedy of infringement of an individual right and by filing the suit under Sec. 92 intends to vindicate a private right. To buttress his arguments, he would place reliance on the decision of the Apex Court rendered in Swami Parmatmanand Saraswati and another .vs. Ramji Tripathi and another, AIR 1974 SC 2141 and the Division Bench decision of this Court in Sri.C.R.Shivananda and another .vs. Sri.H.C.Gurusiddappa and others,[(2012)(2) KCCR 1186]. By placing reliance on these two decisions, he would submit to this Court that the order passed by the Court below permitting the respondents-plaintiffs to institute the suit under Sec. 92 of CPC is palpably erroneous and the reasoning assigned by the learned Judge while allowing the Misc. applications runs contrary to the settled proposition of law rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court cited supra.