Civil Revision No. 1803 of 2007 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 1803 of 2007 Date of decision: 28.08.2009 Shri Pehlad Jangra and others ....Petitioners Versus Jagdish Prasahad and others ....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD K. SHARMA Present: - None for the petitioners. Mr. Akshay Kumar Goel, Advocate, for respondents No. 1, 4, 6 and 7. ***** VINOD K. SHARMA, J (ORAL) This revision petition is directed against the order dated 20.3.2007, passed by the learned Civil (Senior Division), Bhiwani, vide which the application moved by the respondents under Section 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure, was allowed without notice to the petitioners. The petitioners have challenged the impugned order primarily on the ground, that the stipulations contained in Section 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure were not fulfilled, as the plaintiff/respondents failed to plead their interest in the society, so as to enable them to file a petition under Section 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The averments made in the petition qua interest in the society read as under: - “13. That the plaintiffs have faith in Sanatan Dharam and are interested in the working of the Sabha. Even their predecessors were members and running the institution and rather residing near the Institution Civil Revision No. 1803 of 2007 -2- building. As such, they are interested in the proper administration of the society.” The interest pleaded could not be said to real, substantive and existing interest in the trust. As a matter of fact, in para 7, it was pleaded, that the application of the plaintiff/respondents for being enrolled as members was not accepted, thus, no interest at all was shown, which could entitle them to maintain application under Section 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Furthermore, the learned Court without giving an opportunity to the respondent-trust to oppose the application, allowed it. View taken, that the interest has to be real and substantive, finds support from the judgment of this Court in Dr. Ram Parkash Vs. Dayal Chand and others, AIR 1986 Punjab and Haryana 237, wherein this Court has been pleased to lay down as under: - “9. As regards the respondents being persons interested in the Trust, the words 'interest in the Trust' were interpreted in Farman Ali Khan v. Mohd. Raza Khan, AIR 1950 All 62 (at p. 65) to mean “some such interest which is affected by mismanagement so that the person is interested in having the affairs of the trust set right by Court”. It would also be pertinent to advert to the judgment of the Privy Council in Vaidyanathan Ayyar v. Swaminatha Ayyar, AIR 1924 PC 221(2) where the statement of Sir John Wallis in Ramachandra Aiayar v. Parameswaran Unni, ILR 42 Mad 360 : (AIR 1919 Mad 384) was approved “that the object was to prevent people interfering by virtue of S. 92 of the Code in the administration of charitable trusts merely in the interest of others and without any real interest of their own.” 10. The interest required by S. 92 of the Code must thus Civil Revision No. 1803 of 2007 -3- be a real, substantive and existing interest in the particular Trust. Something more than, for example, merely being a resident of the locality or belonging to the same religion. The requirement, of course, is merely to show the existence of such interest prima facie only. 11. This, thus, being the law on the subject, there can be no escape from the conclusion that the respondents failed to show even prima facie what interest, if any, they had in the Trust in question nor that the Trust was of the nature mentioned in S. 92 of the Code. IN this situation, it must indeed be held that the grant of permission to the respondents to institute a suit against the petitioner was contrary to law.” This revision is allowed, the impugned order is set aside, the application moved by the plaintiff/respondents under Section 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure is ordered to be dismissed, but with no order as to costs. Revision allowed. (Vinod K. Sharma) Judge August 28, 2009 R.S.