THAKARDAWARA Vs. NAGAR SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) -The present revision petition has been filed by Thakardwara Patiala Mohalla Bibrian and others (hereinafter described as the Petitioners') directed against the order passed by the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Division) Patiala, dated 5.2.1998. By virtue of the impugned order the learned trial court allowed the application filed by the plaintiff-respondent to institute the suit under Section 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure for removal of petitioner NQ. 3 Mahant Garib Dass from Mohtmimship of Thakardwara Patiala and further held that the said permission has been granted after filing the/suit and, therefore, the suit be taken to have been filed on the date the permission had been granted.

(2.) The relevant facts are that respondents who were plaintiffs filed a suit under Section 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure for removal of petitioner No. 3 from the Mohtmimship of Thakardwara Patiala and for appointment of new trustees. It was prayed that petitioner No. 3 should be directed to deliver possession of the property of the said Thakardwara to the new trustees. Notice was issued to the petitioners and they filed a written statement. A preliminary objection was raised regarding maintainability of the suit for want of permission of the Court in view of Section 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

(3.) When this objection was taken the respondents filed an application alleging that petitioner No. 3 has misutilised the income of the Thakardwara (petitioners 1 and 2) and is misusing the property of the said Thakardwara. Inadvertantly the respondents failed to file a formal application seeking permission of the Court for institution of the suit. They requested for the said permission. The said application was contested by the petitioners. It is contended that the suit was earlier filed in the Court of District Judge, Patiala without any permission of the court The plaint was returned but still no application seeking permission under Section 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure was filed. Therefore, the suit was not maintainable, it was further contended that no permission as such should be granted.