A G SYED MOHIDEEN Vs. JAYARAM EDUCATIONAL TRUST

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal has been preferred by the plaintiffs aggrieved over the order dated 23.07.2010 made in I.A.No.146 of 2006 in O.S.No.13 of 2006 passed by the learned Principal District Judge, Cuddalore, whereby the leave granted in I.A.No.20 of 2006 on 04.04.2006 to file a suit under section 92 C.P.C. was revoked.

(2.) The short facts of the case are as follows: The appellants are the plaintiffs, who are the husband and wife and the respondents are defendants 1 and 2 in O.S.No.13 of 2006. Originally, the plaintiffs filed an application in I.A.No.20 of 2006 seeking permission of the Court to institute a suit under section 92 C.P.C. against the defendants stating that the 2nd defendant is acting against the interest of the 1st defendant Trust and misappropriating the funds of the Trust and is not permitting the 1st plaintiff to discharge his duties as the Trustee. In the said application, notice was ordered to the defendants and on receipt of the same, a counter was filed by the 2nd defendant adopted by defendants 1, 3 and 5 raising objection for granting leave to the plaintiffs. After hearing both sides, the trial court granted leave to institute a suit as prayed for. Hence, the plaintiffs filed O.S.No.13 of 2006 against the defendants numbering 7 for the following reliefs:

(3.) Against the order dated 04.04.2006, defendants 1 to 3 filed C.R.P.No.710 of 2006 before this Court and by its order dated 11.10.2006, liberty was given to the defendants to approach the trial court to take out appropriate application in accordance with law. Pursuant to which, defendants 1 to 3 and 5 filed I.A.No.146 of 2006 before the trial court for revocation of the leave granted to the plaintiffs in I.A.No.20 of 2006 on 04.04.2006, stating that though the 1st plaintiff is the trustee, the 2nd plaintiff has no interest whatsoever in the trust and she is not a person interested in the trust. Moreover, the prayers sought in the plaint are not within the scope of section 92 C.P.C.and as such, no permission could be granted. The said application was objected to by the plaintiffs by filing a counter to the same. After hearing both sides, by order dated 23.07.2010, the trial court revoked the leave already granted. Challenging the same, the present appeal is filed.