TIRUPATTUR NAGARATHU VYSIYARGAL SANGAM Vs. TIRUPATTUR PERIYAKULAM NANDAVANAM INAM LAND TENANTS ASSOCIATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Tirupattur Nagarathu Vysiyargal Sangam, represented by its President, is the petitioner in this revision. He filed this revision against the order made in I.A. No. 42/94 in O.S. No. 23/94 dated 20.1.1994 on the file of the Sub Court. Tirupattur, North Arcot District granting leave to the' respondent herein under Section 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

(2.) According to Mr. V.S. Subramanyam, learned advocate for the petitioner, the order passed by the Sub-Court, granting leave without notice to the petitioners,' who are vitally interested in the trust and the trust properties is materially irregular and illegal. He further contends that the learned Subordinate, Judge has not, even found that the respondent/ proposed plaintiff has any interest-in the trust properties or in the proper administration of the trust. Arguing contra Mr. V. Raghavachari contends that the Civil Revision Petition itself is not maintainable against the order passed by the Sub-Court in view of the recent pronouncement of this Court in the case of Raju Pilial v. Parama Sloan. The learned Judge held that the revision is maintainable to the. High Court against any case which is decided by a court subordinate to the High Court against which no appeal lies. Further, the order of the Court must also be of the nature mentioned in Section 115 sub-clause (1) of CPC. A reading of that Section makes it clear that while exercising the power under Section 115, CPC the Court subordinate to it must be exercising judicial power and it must be in respect of a case decided. There must be a decision affecting the rights of the parties. This judgment, in my opinion, squarely applies to the facts of this case. -

(3.) Mr. V.S. Subramanyam, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has however cited two other decisions in the case of Gurdwara Prabandhak Committee v. Amarjit Singh and flam Prakash v. Dayachand. The learned single Judge of the Delhi High Court held that an order granting leave without the trust being heard is a material irregularity and therefore, the trust which has a direct and substantial interest in the matter can maintain a revision. The learned single Judge of the Punjab and Haryana High Court held that granting permission to institute a suit under Section 92 of the Code, two of the essential requirements have to be considered. They are (1) that the person applying for permission to institute a suit must have an interest in the trust, and (2) that the trust must be for a public purpose of a charitable or religious nature and that the interest required by Section 92 is a real, substantive and existing interest in the particular trust. Therefore, against the order granting permission under Section 92 to institute a suit a revision under Section 115(1)(c) read with proviso (a) lies.