K V NATARAJAN Vs. K V ANANTHARAJ

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioners are first and second defendants in O.S.No.15 of 2006 on the file of the Principal District Judge, Villupuram. THE suit has been filed by the respondents praying the Court to remove the defendants 1 and 2 from the office of the trustees of Rajas Educational Trust, Tindivanam and to direct the defendants 1 to 3 to submit accounts for income of the said property. Earlier, a suit was filed in Sub-Court, Tindivanam in O.S.No.121 of 2002 and subsequently it was transmitted to the Principal District Court, Villupuram. THE respondents filed application under Section 92 of C.P.C. for grant of leave to institute the suit and after granting leave, the suit was numbered. THE petitioners filed I.A.No.361 of 2008 under Sections 92 and 151 of C.P.C. To revoke the order of granting leave to sue the respondents in I.A.No.251 of 2002 in O.S.No.121 of 2002, under Section 92 of C.P.C.

(2.) IN the affidavit of the first petitioner the following allegations are found: 2.(i) There are as many as 4 suits in Courts, only one suit in O.s.No.72 of 2005 was filed by the petitioners. Knowing fully well, that the allegations in their plaint do not come within the purview of Section 92 C.P.C., the respondents have filed another suit in O.s.No.105 of 2008, and the alleged same misdeed of 1st petitioner is sought to be enlightened in both the suits with regard to purchase of properties. O.S.No.104 of 2008 and O.S.No.105 of 2008 would go to show that the respondents are interested in ventilating their personal grievances. The respondents obtained order of injunction in I.A.No.250 of 2002 in O.S.No.121 of 2002 against which C.M.A.No.564 of 2003 was preferred before the Division Bench of the High Court and the same was ordered in favour of these petitioners on 23.12.2003.2.(ii) The first petitioner is in charge of the day to day administration of institution from 10.3.2002 and to be the Chairman of the Trust from 10.06.2004. The respondents have stated that the value of the suit is Rs.2,00,00,000/- and taking umbrage under Section 92 C.P.C., they wanted to have gamble by affixing a paltry sum of Rs.50/- but at the same time, they are spending huge amounts on other legal expenses upto Supreme Court by misusing funds of the Trust to satisfy their personal grudge. It is unfortunate to see that the Court of first instance at the time of filing suit itself seems to have ordered leave to sue for mere asking without applying its mind. A simple non-speaking order is nothing but derailment of justice delivery system.2.(iii) It was held by the High Court that there is no cause of action to file the suit. The object of purpose for filing this suit should be scanned and not the relief portion, which is paramount importance and the suit should have been brought in the representative capacity which is lacking in the suit. Section 92 C.P.C., is not to protect the private interest. Leave was granted without notice to the petitioners and the Trust had been impleaded without following the provisions of section 92 C.P.C. IN case notice was not given, the petitioners can question that the leave to sue should not be granted. Hence the petition may be allowed.

(3.) MR.N. Suresh, learned counsel for the petitioner laboured hard to high light the pleadings in the plaint with reference to the other proceedings connected to it and submitted that the petitioners have only filed the suit to vindicate their personal grudge against the first respondent particularly and that the court below should not have granted leave to them. It is his further contention that in view of the Order passed by the Division Bench of this Court in C.M.A.No.564 of 2003, the grant of leave should have been revoked.