C.R. No. 62 of 2009 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 62 of 2009 (O&M) Date of decision: January 23 , 2009 Budh Singh Dhahan .. Petitioner v. Amarjit Singh and others .. Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL Present: Mr. Arun Jain, Senior Advocate with Mr. Pavit Singh Mattewal, Advocate for the petitioner. Rajesh Bindal J. Challenge in the present petition is to the order dated 28.11.2008, passed by learned Additional District Judge, Nawanshahr, whereby the appeal against order dated 25.2.2008, passed by Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Nawanshahr, was dismissed. Briefly, the facts are that respondent No. 1 filed a suit for declaration claiming that he was duly elected Cashier of Guru Nanak Mission Medical & Educational Trust, Dhahan-Kaleran, Tehsil and District Nawanshahr (for short, `the Trust') and termination of his services as Cashier of the Trust by means of letter dated 28.1.2008 by the petitioner-defendant No.1 was void, non est, inoperative, ineffective and without jurisdiction. It is in this suit, an application was filed by the petitioner for dismissal of the suit being not maintainable under Section 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The application having been dismissed by the learned trial court, initially the petitioner immediately approached this court by challenging the order by filing C.R. No. 2795 of 2008 without even disclosing the pendency of the appeal against that order before the learned lower appellate court. However, even during the pendency of the aforesaid Civil Revision, the appeal filed by the petitioner against the order dated 25.2.2008 was also dismissed. That is how the petitioner is before this Court. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that it is a case where the involvement is of the property of Trust and any suit involving the Trust was not maintainable, unless there was prior permission of the court or the Advocate General. Even otherwise, in terms of the provisions of Section 14 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, the suit for declaration for enforcing a personal right was not C.R. No. 62 of 2009 [2] maintainable. To substantiate the plea, a reference was made to the order passed by the learned court below in an application filed by respondent No. 1 in the suit under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC, whereby vide order dated 30.1.2008, the learned court stayed the operation of the bank accounts of the Trust, meaning thereby that the litigation had link with the Trust. After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner, I do not find any merit in the present petition. Respondent No.1 in the present case had not filed a suit against the Trust, in terms of which it could have some relation with the provisions of Section 92 CPC. The suit was simplicitor for declaration challenging his termination as Cashier of the Trust vide letter dated 28.1.2008. The Trust was not even a party in the suit filed. An application for rejection of plaint is maintainable under Order VII Rule 11 CPC. Though no provision is mentioned on the application, even if it is considered that the same was filed under that provision, in terms thereof the petitioner was to establish on record how the plaint was liable to be rejected on account of any of the grounds mentioned therein. Reliance was sought to be placed on Section 92 CPC for the purpose of praying for dismissal of the suit, a perusal of which shows that the disputes which are covered therein are primarily between the Trust and the trustees for better and effective management of the properties of the Trust. In the present case, the Trust is not even a party to the suit, as the challenge is only to the termination of services of respondent No. 1 as Cashier of the Trust. Plea regarding Section 14 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 was never raised before the court below. In view of my aforesaid discussion, I do not find any merit in the present petition. Accordingly, the same is dismissed. (Rajesh Bindal) Judge January 23, 2009 mk