Civil Revision No.4259 of 2009 (1) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.4259 of 2009 Date of Decision: 30.7.2009 Ashok Kumar ......Appellant Versus Surajram Memorial Foundation Charitable Trust and others .......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA. 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Present: Shri S.M. Wadhera, Advocate, for the petitioner. HEMANT GUPTA, J. (Oral). The defendant is in revision aggrieved against the order passed by the learned trial Court on 24.4.2009, whereby an application filed by the defendant under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC, was dismissed. Suit has been filed by the plaintiff-trust through one of the trustees, namely, Smt. Bimla Rani, on the basis of resolution dated 4.10.2006, passed by the trustees, authorising her to sign all documents in connection with cases, suits and to do all things necessary for pursuing the cases/suits. Such resolution has been signed by the Chairman of the trust and two other trustees along with Bimla Devi in the form of her acceptance. The learned trial Court dismissed the said application holding that there is no infirmity regarding maintainability of the suit which could result in rejection of the plaint as such and dismissed his application. Learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to Clause 5 of Civil Revision No.4259 of 2009 (2) the Trust Deed, to contend that power to institute; conduct; defend, compound or abandon any legal proceedings, is either with a managing trustee or with the trustees acting together, but the Trust Deed does not authorise delegation of power to contest suit or legal proceedings in favour of one of the trustees. Reliance is placed upon Section 47 of the Indian Trusts Act, 1882 (for short `the Act') and a Full Bench judgment of Gujarat High Court reported as Atmaram Ranchhodbhai v. Gulamhusein Gulam Mohiyaddin and another, AIR 1973 Gujarat 113. However, I do not find any merit in the argument raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner. Clause 5 and 6 of the Trust Deed, appended with the petition, read as under:- “5. The Managing Trustee or the Trustees shall have the power to institute, conduct, defend, compound or abandon any legal proceedings by or against the Trust its officer of otherwise concerning the affairs of the Trust and also to satisfaction of any debts due and of any claims of demands by or against the Trust to arbitration and to observe and perform the awards, to engage counsels, advocate, lawyers, to appoint attorneys, to execute in their favour the necessary vakalatnamas or power of attorney, to appoint permanent legal adviser to the Trust or such representative as may be agreed, to appoint or dismiss managers, secretaries, servants and necessary staff, to open any bank account in the name of the trust to operate upto such account and withdraw money therefrom, to grant receipts, releases of other discharges for money due or payable to the Trust. 6. The Managing Trustee or the Trustees may delegate any power to any or more Trustees, by a Resolution of the Trustees to effect, to act jointly or Civil Revision No.4259 of 2009 (3) severally, with powers to sub-delegate his or their powers, to anybody whom they consider fit for that purposes by means of power of attorney or attorneys executed for that purposes or by letter or letters.” Clause 6 of the Trust Deed empowers the Managing Trustee or the Trustees to delegate “any power” to any or more Trustees by a Resolution of the Trustees to act jointly or severally. In terms of Clause 6 of the Trust Deed, the Managing Trustee or the Trustees could delegate any power and such power will include the power under Clause 5 of the Trust Deed in favour of one or more Trustees, jointly or severally. Therefore, in terms of the conditions of the Trust, Smt. Bimla Rani has been duly authorised by the Trustees to file the suit on behalf of the Trust. Section 47 of the Act is not applicable in the present case in as much as the instrument of Trust itself provides the power to delegate any of the duties. Therefore, neither the said provision nor the judgment referred to which interprets Section 47 of the Act, is applicable to the facts of the present case. Consequently, I do not find any patent illegality or irregularity in the impugned order, which may warrant interference by this Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction. The application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC is wholly frivolous and has been filed with the intention to delay the proceedings. Hence, the revision petition filed with the same intention is dismissed with costs of Rs.1000/-. Such costs shall also be the costs in the proceedings as well. (HEMANT GUPTA) 30.7.2009 JUDGE ds