IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH TUESDAY, THE 7TH SEPTEMBER 2010 / 16TH BHADRA 1932 CRP.No. 474 of 2010() ------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 06/07/2010 IN IA.956/2009 IN OS.4/2009 OF DISTRICT COURT, KOLLAM .................................................... PETITIONERS - RESPONDENTS 1 TO 4 ------------------------------------------------------ 1. MUTHUPILAKKAD SREE PARTHASARATHY TEMPLE SABHA, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT, R.RADHAKRISHNAN NAIR, SON OF RAGHAVAN PILLAI, RESIDING AT PUTHEN VEETTIL VADAKKETHIL, POORUVAZHI P.O., MUTHUPILAKKAD WEST,SASTHAMCOTTA. 2. R.RADHAKRISHNAN NAIR, PRESIDENT, MUTHUPILAKKAD SREE PARTHASARATHY TEMPLE SABHA BHARANA SAMITHI, RESIDING AT DO. 3. K.G.SASIDHARAN, SON OF GOVINDA PILLAI, SECRETARY,MUTHUPILAKKAD SREE PARATHASARATHY TEMPLE SABHA BHARANA SAMITHI, RESIDING AT KALEELUVILAYIL VEEDU, PORUVAZHI PO, MUTHUPILAKKAD WEST, SASTHAMCOTTA. 4. R.KUTTAN PILLAI, TREASURER, MUTHUPILAKKAD SREE PARTHASARATHY TEMPLE SABHA BHARANA SAMITHI, RESIDING AT JYOTHI BHAVAN, MUTHIPILAKKAD EAST, PORUVAZHY P.O., SASTHAMCOTTA. BY ADVS. SMT.K.G.BINDU SMT.T.S.MAYA (THIYADIL) SMT.PRINCY XAVIER RESPONDENTS - PETITIONERS 1 TO 8 & ADDL.RESPONDENTS 5 TO 9 ----------------------------------------------------------- 1. MUTHUPILAKKAD SREE PARTHASARATHY KSHETHRAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS KSHETHRA SABHA MEMBER, C.RAMACHANDRAN, SON OF R.CHELLAPPAN PILLAI RESIDING AT PUTHEN MADATHIL VEEDU, PORUVAZHY P.O., MUTHUPILAKKAD WEST, SASTHAMCOTTA, 690 521. ...2/- CRP.No. 474 of 2010 -2- 2. C.RAMACHANDRAN,S/O.R.CHELLAPPAN PILLAI, RESIDING AT PUTHEN MADATHIL VEEDU, PORUVAZHY P.O., MUTHUPILAKKAD WEST, SASTHAMCOTTA, 690 521. 3. M.NARAYANA PILLAI,SON OF MADHAVAN PILLAI PANDARAZHIKATHU VEEDU, MUTHUPILAKKAD EAST, MUTHUPILAKKAD P.O., SASTHAMCOTTA, 690 525. 4. K.RAJENDRAN, SON OF K.K.PANICKER, SARADA BHAVAN, PORUVAZHY P.O., MUTHUPILAKKAD WEST, SASTHAMCOTTA, 690 521. 5. T.MURALEEDHARAN PILLAI, SON OF THANKAPPAN PILLAI, M.G.S.NIVAS, MUTHUPILAKKAD P.O., MUTHUPILAKKAD WEST, SASTHAMCOTTA, 690 525. 6. C.K.NARAYANA PILLAI, SON OF KRISHNAN PILLAI, KARIMPALIL VEEDU, PORUVAZHY P.O., MUTHUPILAKKAD WEST, SASTHAMCOTTA, 690 525. 7. S.RAGHAVAN PILLAI, SON OF SANKARA PILLAI SANTHOSH BHAVAN, PORUVAZHI P.O., 690 521 8. K.G.SASIDHARAN PILLAI, SON OF GOPALA KURUP, SREEJITH BHAVAN, MUTHUPILAKKAD P.O., 690 525. 9. G.GOPINATHAN PILLAI, SON OF GOPALA PILLAI, LATHA BHAVAN, MUTHUPILAKKAD P.O., SASTHAMCOTTA, 690 525. 10.B.RAJAN PILLAI,SON OF BALAKRISHNA PILLAI POOMANGALATHU VEEDU, DO, 690 525. 11.K.K.KUNJUKRISHNA PILLAI, SON OF KUNJAN PILLAI, RESIDING AT KRISHNA VILASOM, DO, 690 525. 12.THYAGARAJAN PILLAI, SON OF GOPALAN NAIR, KOCHU VEEDU, MUTHUPILAKKAD EAST, PORUVAZHI P.O., SASTHAMCOTTA, 690 521. 13.V.SREEDHARAN PILLAI, SON OF VELU PILLAI, JAYA MANDIRAM, FROM THATTANTE AYYATHU VEEDU, MUTHUPILAKKAD P.O., SASTHAMCOTTA, 690 525. BY THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07/09/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Mn THOMAS P JOSEPH,J. --------------------------------------- C.R.P.NO. 474 OF 2010 ------------------------------------------ Dated this the 27th day of September, 2010. ORDER Respondent No.1 to 4 in I.A.No.956 of 2009 in O.S.No.4 of 2009 of the court of learned District Judge Kollam are the petitioners before me. They challenge the order on I.A.No.956 of 2009 granting leave to respondent Nos.1 to 8 under section 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short ‘the Code’) to institute the suit. Respondent No.1 is the Muthupilakkad Sree Parthasarathy Temple Sabha ( for short ‘the Sabha’). According to the petitioners, respondents 2 onwards were former members of the governing counsel of the Sabha. They filed the suit and I.A.No.956 of 2009 seeking permission to sue under Section 92 of the Code to vindicate their private grievances. It is alleged that respondent No.1 is a Public Trust now bearing administered by petitioners. According to respondents 1 to 8, there is total mis-management in the matter of administration of the trust and its property. They said that the bye-law of the trust is out dated and hence, a scheme has to be framed for proper administration and management of the trust and its property. Respondent Nos.1 to 8 therefore, wanted a scheme to be framed for the proper administration of the trust, to remove the existing trustees (petitioners) and to conduct election of office bearers of the trust. The application was C.R.P.NO. 474 OF 2010 2 resisted by petitioners. They contended that attempt of respondent Nos. 2 to 8 is to vindicate their private and personal grievance on account of their not being elected as office bearers of the trust. They also denied the allegation regarding mis-management of affairs of the trust. Respondent Nos.9 to 13 (impleaded in I.A.956 of 2009 as respondent Nos. 5 to 8) supported respondents Nos.1 to 8. Learned District Judge considered the questions whether leave sought for could be granted and by the impugned order granted leave to respondents 1 to 8 to institute the suit under Section 92 of the Code. That order is under challenge. It is contended by learned counsel that procedure followed by respondent Nos. 1 to 8 in seeking leave is irregular since leave has been applied for by way of an Interlocutory Application as if made in a pending suit. It is also contended by learned counsel that learned District Judge has not considered the objection of petitioners that object of the suit is to vindicate the private grievance of respondent Nos.2 to 8. Reliance is placed on decision in Vidyodaya Trust v Mohan Prasad (2008 (2) KLT 68 -SC) . So far as leave under Section 92 of the Code is concerned it is the settled position of law that what is relevant is the averments in the petition seeking leave. In the affidavit in support of I.A.956 of 2009 it is alleged by respondent Nos.1 to 8 that there is mis-management in the administration of the trust and its property, a new scheme has to be framed for its proper administration, petitioners are to be removed from the office of C.R.P.NO. 474 OF 2010 3 the trust and fresh election has to be conducted. There could be no dispute that reliefs prayed for came within the scope of Section 92 of the Code. The Supreme Court in Vidyodaya Trust v Mohan Prasad (2008 (2) KLT 68) true, observed that it has to be ascertained whether the object of the suit is to vindicate private grievances and for that, go beyond the relief asked for. No doubt in this case petitioners have a contention that respondent Nos.2 to 8 who were members of the previous governing counsel, they lost in the subsequent election and have triggered this controversy. But, apart from the pleadings in that line, no materials is produced before the learned District Judge in support of that contention. Hence that contention cannot be accepted at this stage. Then the next contention is that leave has been applied for and obtained on an Interlocutory Application which is irregular. This court in Abdul Azeez v L.I.W.A. Educational Charitable Society (2010 (3) KLT 158) pointed out that the proper procedure is to seek leave by way of an original petition as institution of the suit is to follow grant of leave and it is irregular procedure to seek leave by way of an interlocutory application as if filed in the pending suit. But this Court did not say that an interlocutory application seeking leave is not maintainable for that reason alone. The position was clarified in St. Peter's and Paul's Syrian Orthodox Church v Varghese (2010 (3) KLT 382). Though the procedure adopted in C.R.P.NO. 474 OF 2010 4 seeking leave by way of an Interlocutory Application as if in a pending suit is an irregularity, that does not affect validity of the impugned order. Hence that contention also cannot be sustained. On going through the order under challenge , I do not find reason to interfere. Civil Revision petition is dismissed. THOMAS P JOSEPH,JUDGE. pm