SETH KIRODIMAL DHARMADA TRUST Vs. KALICHARAN KESHAAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) LEGALITY and propriety of the order dated 03.08.2010, passed by the District Judge, Raigarh, in Civil Suit No. 29-A/2010, whereby the petitioner's application filed under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC, read with Section 151 of CPC has been rejected, is under assail in this revision.

(2.) THE facts giving rise to this revision are: the plaintiff/respondent instituted a suit before the District Judge, Raigarh, for declaration that resolution dated 21.02.10, passed by the applicants/defendants to remove the non applicant/plaintiff from trusteeship of applicant Trust is illegal, arbitrary and bad in law and the same is without jurisdiction as the resolution dated 21.08.01, whereby the applicant No. 3 & 4 were appointed as a trustee, and the resolution dated 05.11.07, whereby the applicant No. 5 was appointed as a trustee are illegal, arbitrary and bad in law and without jurisdiction. Consequential relief of injunction was also claimed.

(3.) ON the other hand, Shri Sanjay K Agrawal, learned counsel appearing for the respondent would submit that non applicant/respondent has filed the Civil Suit for declaration that the resolutions passed by the applicants/defendants is illegal, bad in law and against the Bye Laws of non applicant. It is well settled law that suit for declaration of resolutions passed by the trustee of public trust in its meetings as illegal and void, are outside the scope of Section 92 of CPC. A litigant having a grievance of a civil nature has a right to institute a civil suit in a competent civil court unless its cognizance is either expressly or impliedly barred by any statute. By placing reliance upon the judgment of Supreme Court in case of Swami Parmatmanand Saraswati v. Ramji Tripathi2, he would further submit that when the right to the office of a trustee is asserted or denied and the relief asked for on that basis, the suit falls outside Section 92 of CPC. There is no reason to think that whenever a suit is brought by two or more persons under Section 92 of CPC, the suit is to vindicate the right of the public. So far valuation is concerned, he would submit that the same is yet to be decided by the court below and for that issues have already been framed and the challenge is premature.