RSA No. 619 of 2006 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA No. 619 of 2006 (O&M) Date of Decision: September 23 , 2009 Managing Committee Dera Kaul Dass and others ...... Appellants Versus Vidya Devi and others ...... Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ajay Tewari Present: Mr.Jai Bhagwan, Advocate for the appellants. Mr.Arun Jindal, 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? Ajay Tewari, J. This appeal has been filed against the concurrent judgments of the Courts below dismissing the suit filed by the plaintiff for joint possession of the land standing in the name of Dera Kaul Dass. It is not disputed that the President of the appellant Dera had earlier filed a similar suit in his personal capacity also making similar allegations that the property in dispute was owned by the above mentioned Dera but was being misused by the respondents. That suit had been dismissed on the ground of locus standi. Thereafter the present committee was constituted and the present suit was initiated. This suit has also been RSA No. 619 of 2006 (O&M) 2 dismissed on the ground of locus standi. The following questions have been proposed:- A) Whether Mahant Kirpal Dass could suffer the consent decree in favour of defendant No.1 regarding the property which belongs to the Dera? B) Whether Mahant Kirpal Dass was entitled to execute the Will regarding the property which belonged to the Dera? C) Whether the learned courts below can non-suit the appellant/plaintiff on the ground of res judicata relied upon in the previous litigation? D) Whether the learned Courts below have properly appreciated the Exhibit D-3 wherein the learned Additional District Judge had held that he property belonged to the Dera? E) Whether Kirpal Dass had become the owner of the suit land vide mutation No. 3503 because the suit property belonged to the Dera? It would be seen that none of these questions proposed address the central issue of locus standi. The only arguments raised are, however, on the question of locus standi. Learned counsel has argued that once the appellant was constituted as a registered society it had the right to file the instant suit. I am afraid the argument does not hold water. In my opinion Section 92 of the CPC is the appropriate remedy for any person who is seeking any relief in respect of a charity on the ground that it is being misused. There is no bar to the plaintiff-appellant to follow the procedure mentioned under Section 92 CPC. The finding that in fact the appellant society was or was not a bona fide society espousing a public cause is hardly material since under the scheme of our law the primary guardian of public charities is either the Advocate General or the Court. No explanation is forthcoming as to why recourse to Section 92 CPC could not be taken in the present case. RSA No. 619 of 2006 (O&M) 3 Consequently this appeal as well as the application for stay are dismissed. Since the main case has been decided, the pending Civil Misc. Applications, if any, stand disposed of. (AJAY TEWARI) JUDGE September 23 , 2009 sunita