MANOHAR Vs. CHATTER SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS civil miscellaneous appeal has been preferred by Manoharjal, Parkash Chand & Prakash Chand sons of Roshanlal (defendant No. 1) under Order XLIII, Rule 1(1) CPC against the order of the learned Senior Civil Judge, Udaipur, dated April 13, 1968.

(2.) THE facts leading to this appeal may briefly be noticed. The plaintiffs Chhattar Singh Sheodan Singh & Roshanlal instituted a suit for rendition of accounts under Section 92 C.P.C. against the members of Shri Jain Swetamber Prabhu Pujak Dharmsala Committee (hereinafter referred to as 'the Committee') a registered Institution of the former Mewar State in connection with the trust property relating to a Jain Dharmsaja. The suit was instituted in the court of District Judge, Udaipur on November 11, 1955 after obtaining sanction from the Advocate General of Rajasthan. It is necessary here to mention that the Advocate General accorded permission to the plaintiffs to file a suit against the whole body of the Managing Committee of Shri Jain Swetamber Prabhu Pujak Dharmsala Committee for rendition of accounts under Section 92 C.P.C. vide his order dated September 5, 1955. While according permission he specifically noted that from the trend of accounting between the Dharmasala and the firm, Roshanlal Chatur cannot be accused of analafides in charging the interest from the Dharmsala on the previous running accounts is the Samvat year 2003. It was also mentioned that Roshanlal Chatur and his predecessors had rendered substantial service in the cause of Dharmsala by supplying the needed funds without which there would perhaps have been serious obstacles in the way of the construction of the Dharmsala. According to the Advocate General the adjustment of Rs. 16127.9 annas on account of interest after the partners of the firm had declared that they had given up their claims of interest against the Dharmsala raised a serious legal issue as to whether Roshanlal Chatur was legally justified in doing so even though the declaration had been made in the proceedings to which the Dharamsala Committee was not a party. In these circumstances he concluded that it is desirable in the case of this Public Trust that the matter should be submitted before the Competent Court for its adjudication. The following extract from the order of the Advocate General dated September 5, 1955 needs to be quoted:

(3.) ON May 2, 1964 an application was moved under Order XXII, Rules 4 and 10 CPC praying therein that the appellants (three sons of Roshanlal Chatur and Smt Umrao Bai) maybe substituted in his place. This application was resisted on the ground that heirs of Roshanlal Chatur were not his legal representatives so as to be substituted in the place of the deceased Roshanlal Chatur as it was a suit under Section 92 CPC. It may be mentioned here that Smt. Umrao Bai also died on December 16 1964 and on April 13, 1965 an application was filed for bringing her legal representatives on record and they are respondents Nos. 9(a) to (j) in this appeal The learned Senior Civil Judge accepted the application by his order dated April 13, 1968 Being dissatisfied with the order of substitution, the appellants preferred this appeal as aforesaid.