IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision : 23.09.2010 C.R.No.6175 of 2010 (O&M) Baba Ghala Singh and another ...Petitioners Versus Partap Singh Buggar ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA Present : Mr. Harsh Aggarwal, Advocate, for the petitioners. HEMANT GUPTA, J. (ORAL) The defendants are in the revision aggrieved against the order passed by the learned trial Court on 07.09.2010, whereby an application under Order 7 Rule 11 of the CPC for rejection of the plaint, was declined. The plaintiff-respondent filed a suit for permanent injunction as a disciple of Sant Baba Ishar Singh Ji, claiming right to manage the place of Gurdwara Sukhmani Sahib and the land adjoining to it and that the defendants be restrained from raising any construction of any kind or blocking free passage of air, light in any manner to the deterrent of the plaintiff and inhabitants of Gurdwara Sukhmani Sahib. The said suit was filed on 24.07.2004. In such suit, the defendant-petitioner filed written statement on 26.08.2004. The defendant moved an application for rejection of the plaint on 17.07.2010. The Court has found that the suit filed by the plaintiff is not barred in terms of Section 92 of the CPC, as the plaintiff has not sought decree for any of the purposes as enumerated in clause (a) to (h) of sub-Section (1) of Section 92 of the CPC. C.R.No.6175 of 2010 (O&M) For the purposes of determining, whether the plaint disclose any cause of action or the suit is barred by any other provision of law, one has to go through the recital in the plaint. The plaintiff has claimed right in the management of the property as a disciple of Sant Baba Ishar Singh Ji. Such claim is not covered by Section 92 of the CPC. Under Section 92, any person who is interested in the Management of the Trust, may file a suit for the proper management of the Trust. The persons, who invoke the jurisdiction of the Court do not ask the relief for themselves, but for proper management of the Trust. In the present case, the plaintiff has sought right in him. Since the plaintiff is claiming title of the property in himself, the suit filed by the plaintiff is not one, which is covered by the provisions of Section 92 of the CPC. The plaintiff is also not claiming any of the relieves as enumerated in clause (a) to (h) of sub-Section (1) of Section 92 of the CPC. In view of the said fact, I do not find any patent illegality or irregularity in the order passed by the learned trial Court, which may warrant any interference by this Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction. Dismissed. 23.09.2010 (HEMANT GUPTA) Vimal JUDGE 2