TRIMURTI CHARITABLE PUBLIC TRUST Vs. MUNIKUMAR RAJDAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners are aggrieved by order dated 04.07.2016 passed by the court of 7th Additional District Judge, Gwalior whereby application under Order 1 Rule 10 of CPC filed by the plaintiff Munikumar Rajdan has been accepted on the ground that provisions contained in Section 8 (2) of the Madhya Pradesh Public Trust Act, 1951 are mandatory.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that no order could have been passed which prejudices the interest of the present petitioners after such a long time gap especially when suit was filed by the plaintiff Munikumar Rajdan in the year 2000 and in the written statement specific plea was taken that the suit which has been filed seeking declaration for cancellation of registration of the trust has to necessarily include Registrar Public Trust as a party and same has not been impleaded as a party, therefore, the suit is not maintainable. Therefore, now after 16 years of institution of the suit, application under Order 1 Rule 10 of CPC is not maintainable.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioners also submitted that as per the provisions contained in Section 8 (2) of Madhya Pradesh Public Trust Act, 1951 the civil court is required to give notice to the State Government through the Registrar and the State Government, if it so desires, shall be made a party to the suit. Therefore, an application under Order 1 Rule 10 of CPC was not maintainable at the instance of the plaintiff and was only a deliberate attempt to delay the proceedings in the suit. It has also been submitted that amendment taking away the right accrued to party by elapse of time should not be allowed as has been laid down in the case of Prigonda Hongonda Patil vs. Kalgonda Shidgonda Patil and others as reported in AIR 1957 S.C. 363 so also on the decision of this High Court as reported in 1981 M.P. Weekly Notes 175 Shankarlal vs. Kothari & Co. Ratlam so also on the decision of this High Court in the case of Beesa Porwal Jain Shwetambar Teerth Sangodhia & Anr. vs. Poonamchand as reported in 1981 JLJ 496 to bring home the issue that application under Order 1 Rule 10 of CPC could not have been allowed causing prejudice to the present petitioners. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents has relied on the decision reported in 1966 MPLJ Short Note 106 Swami Vidyanand Saraswati vs. Hazarilal Choubey.