IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.4270 of 2002 Date of decision:25.02.2009 Shree Bawa Daya Ram Trust Society ...Petitioners and another versus Bhagwan Dass and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.KANNAN Present: Mr.Mahipal Singh, Advocate for Mr. Ashish Kapoor, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr. Pardeep Singh, Advocate for the respondents. 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 ? K.Kannan, J.(Oral) 1. The counsel Mr. Mahipal Singh, Advocate is not on record and seeks adjournment on behalf of the counsel for the petitioners. Having regard to the fact that the order impugned has been passed in a pending suit and stay has been granted by virtue of an interim order, I reject the plea of adjournment. 2. The suit had been filed under Section 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure and the leave appears to have been granted by the Court below, even without serving notice to the respondents. An application had been filed to revoke the leave granted, principally stating that the order passed without serving notice was not valid. It was further Civil Revision No.4270 of 2002 - 2 - contended that the Trust was not registered, under the provisions of the Indian Trust Act and the suit as framed itself not maintainable. 3. Before the Court below reliance has been made on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in AIR 1991 Supreme Court 211-R.M.Naryana Chattiar and another versus N. Lakshman Chettiar and others, which sets out the procedure for disposal of application under Section 92 C.P.C. As per the said decision, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has laid down that notice of the application is always the norm but however, if leave had been granted even without notice it would not render the institution of the suit itself invalid but it would be an irregular procedure. The Court below has, however, considered the issue whether there was any justification for the applicants to contend that the leave ought not to have been granted. The objection taken that the trust had not been registered under the Trust Act is, in my view, not tenable since the provisions of the said Act applies only to private trusts. Civil Procedure Code adverts to reliefs which are enumerated under Section 92 for public charities and trusts. Therefore, there is no requirement in law that the trust shall be registered under the Trust Act. There have been instances where Courts have held that the provisions of the Trust Act would be applicable on an analogy even to public trusts but the public trusts themselves are not proprio vigore governed by any of the provisions of the Trust Act. The basic conditions laid down under Section 92 are that there shall have been an averment of breach of trust in relation to public purposes of charitable or religious nature and the Advocate General or any two persons may institute a suit Civil Revision No.4270 of 2002 - 3 - where contentions are not in the principal Court of original jurisdiction. The reliefs that the suit must contain shall again conform to the reliefs set forth under Section 92(1)(i) to (h) mentioned in the Code. The Court which had accorded leave, although even without serving a notice to the respondent, which is an irregular procedure, has however adverted to the contentions raised by the applicants when an application was moved for revoking the leave. The ultimate order dismissing the application and sustaining the leave already granted suffers no vice. There is no scope for revision before this Court. 4. The revision petition is, accordingly, dismissed. No costs. (K.KANNAN) JUDGE 25.02.2009 sanjeev