M ANANDAN Vs. AYYANNA GOUNDER MEMORIAL TRUST

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is preferred against the Judgment dated 21. 4. 1993 passed by a learned single Judge in C. M. ANo. 497 of 1993. That appeal was preferred against the order dated 21st April, 1993 passed in I. A. No. 1513 of 1990 filed in O. S. No. l217 of 1989.

(2.) FACTS that give rise to the present appeal are as follows: There is a Trust known as Ayyanna Gowder Memorial Trust at Coimbatore . O. S. No. 1217 of 1989 has been filed on 29th March 1989 in the Sub Court , Coimbatore for the following reliefs: (a) Setting a scheme for the administration of the 1st plaintiff Trust, viz. Ayyanna Gowder Memorial Trust providing for the formation of an administration Committee in accordance with the objects of the Trust as reflected under the Trust Deed dated 6. 3. 1948 and also providing for various safeguards with regard to collection of the rents and monies and also with regard to the expenditure etc. (b) Directing the defendants to render true and proper accounts with regard to the collection made on behalf of the Trust for the last three years and surcharging the defendant for the amount if any payable to the trust with suitable directions to pay the said amount to the Trust. (c) Removing the defendant from his self appointed position as Managing Trustees of the 1st plaintiff Trust on account of the irregularities committed by him with regard to the affairs of the Trust and appointing a new trustee in his place: (d) Granting a permanent injunction restraining the defendant from collecting any amount on behalf of the Trust or making any bookings of the marriage hall unless the Committee sanctions itand directing the defendant to pay plaintiffs the costs. " The suit is filed under Sec. 92, Code of Civil Procedure. Along with the plaint, an application under Sec. 92, Code of Civil Procedure is also filed seeking leave of the court to institute the suit. That application has been numbered as I. A. No. 604 of 1989. The learned trial Judge directed issue of notice on that application on 29. 3. 1989. The defendants/respondents in that application were also served and represented. The learned Trial Judge went on postponing the application I. ANo. 604 of 1989 for inquiry. The records of the trial court disclose that the said application is still pending at the stage of inquiry only. In the meanwhile, certain party to the suit died. Therefore, the cause title came to be amended by bringing the legal representatives on record, pursuant to the order dated 9. 11. 1991 passed in I. A. No. 2356 of 1990. Accordingly, the cause title of the plaint and the application I. A. No. 604 of 1989 were amended. Pending grant of leave, there were 3 applications filed by the plaintiff, i. e. , I. A. No. 1511 of 1990 for grant of temporary injunction, i. A. No. 1513 of 1990 for appointment of receiver and another application for appointment of Commissioner. On the orders passed on these 3 applications, the matter came up to this Court in C. R. P. No. 1672 of 1992 against the order appointing a Commissioner, and in A. A. O. No. 514 of 1992 against the orders passed in I. A. Nos. 1511 and 1513 of 1990. A. A. O. Nod. 514 and 515 of 1992 were allowed by the judgment dated 6th August, 1992 in the following terms: The lower court has passed non speaking orders in I. A. No. 1511 of 1990 which is the subject matter in C. M. A. No. 514 of 1992 and I. A. No. 1513 of 1990, which is the subject matter in C. M. A. No. 515 of 1992. The orders are therefore set aside and the lower court is directed to take both the interlocutory applications on its file and dispose of them on merits by passing a reasoned order' '. The civil revision petition was allowed on 20th October, 1992. The order passed by the trial court appointing a Commissioner was set aside and the trial court was directed to consider the same afresh in accordance with law. The said order reads thus: ' This civil revision petition is directed against the order of the learned Principal Subordinate Judge of Coimbatore, made in I. A. No. 1512 of 1990 in O. S. No. 1217 of 1989, dated 1. 7. 1992. The learned subordinate Judge has made the impugned order in the following manner: ' Counter not filed. Petition is allowed. Miss. Shanthi, Advocate is appointed as an Advocate-Commissioner to make local inspection of the suit property and take inventory as book accounts and other records maintained by the Trust and initial all the books and submit report in this Court on 20. 7. 1992. . . .' ' The learned Judge has not given any reasons for passing the said order. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the said order is a non-speaking one and that even a counter not having been filed, such an order had been passed by the learned Judge without going into the merits of the application. In these circumstances, the impugned order is set aside. I. ANo. 1512 of 1990 in O. S. No. 1217 of 1989 is remanded to the Lower Court for consideration on merits and disposal in accordance with law. The lower Court will take up the LA on the file and dispose it of within a period of two months along with other applications, viz. , I. A. Nos. 1511 and 1513 of 1990, pending in the same suit and report the result of the same to this Court. This civil revision petition is allowed. No costs.' ' After these applications were remitted by this Court, it is very relevant to notice that the defendants have filed the written statement on 10. 11. 1992. Even thereafter, the learned trial Judge has gone on adjourning the application filed for grant of leave for filing the suit. After the applications,. I. ANos. 1511 and 1513 of 1990 were remitted, the trial Judge considered those applications and allowed the applications filed for grant of injunction as well as appointment of Receiver by the common order dated 21. 4. 1993. Aggrieved by the order, the 1st defendant in the suit filed C. M. A nos. 496 and 497 of 1993. Learned Single Judge dismissed C. M. A No. 497 of 1993 and allowed CM. ANo. 496 of 1993. As already stated, this L. P. A is directed against the order of the learned single Judge dismissing C. M. A No. 497 of 1993.