Civil Revision No.3777 of 2006 -1- **** IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.3777 of 2006 Date of decision: 17.04.2009. Akhara Baba Bhuranath Petitioner Versus Surinder Singh and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.D.ANAND. Present: Mr. Vinod S.Bhardwaj, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Arun Jain, Senior Advocate with Mr. Amit Jain, Advocate for the respondents No. l and 2. ***** S.D.ANAND, J. The defendants-respondents filed a plea under Order 7 Rule 11 of the C.P.C. for rejection of the plaint. The averment, in the context, was that the suit was not competent for want of compliance with the provisions of Section 92(1) (g) of the C.P.C. The learned Trial Court allowed the plea by observing that the suit is barred by the provisions aforementioned. It is apparent from the record that there is a controversy between the parties about whether the plaintiff-petitioner is a Trust or not. In the plaint (shown at the time of arguments before this Court), the averment is that the plaintiff-petitioner is an organisation Civil Revision No.3777 of 2006 -2- **** handling affairs of the institution under reference. Needless to state, a Trust shall have noticeable connotation which would be different from a mere association of people running the affair of an institution. In that view of things, it was incumbent upon the learned Trial Court is to record a finding about whether the plaintiff-petitioner is a Trust or not. It is thereafter only that the question of applicability or otherwise of provision of Section 92 of the C.P.C. could be adjudicated upon by the learned Trial Court. The petition shall stand allowed. The impugned order shall stand set aside. The learned Trial Court shall proceed to decide the matter afresh in the light of the observation made by this Court. The parties, through their learned counsel, are directed to appear before the learned Trial Court on 28.4.2009. April 17, 2009 (S.D.Anand) Pka Judge