Section 92(1)(H) CPC Very Widely Worded; Court’s Power Depends Upon What Relief Has To Be Granted: Himachal Pradesh High Court

The Himachal Pradesh High Court observed that Section 92(1)(h) of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) is very widely worded and the Court’s power depends upon as to what relief has to be granted at the time of the final decision.

The Court observed thus in an Appeal filed against the Order of the Single Judge, by which the Application under Order 7 Rules 11 and 11 (d) read with Section 151 of CPC was dismissed.

A Division Bench of Chief Justice G.S. Sandhawalia and Justice Jiya Lal Bhardwaj explained, “… Section 92 sub-Clause (1) (h) of CPC is very widely worded which further provides that grant of such further or other relief as the nature of the case may require, can be done by the Principal Civil Court or original jurisdiction or in any other Court empowered in that behalf by the State Government. It is thus, apparently clear from sub-Section (1) (h) of Section 92 CPC, the power of the Courts would depend upon as to what relief has to be granted at the time of the final decision and whether it is to be exercised qua the alienation which was done in favour of Mohinder Lal and therefore, we are of the considered opinion that it would be a question which has to be decided after evidence is led and at this stage even otherwise cannot be done.”

The Bench noted that a perusal of the provisions of Section 92 of CPC would go on to show that sub-Section (1) (a) to (g) provide for various reliefs against the trust and the trustees which is from removal to appointments and to further directing accounts and inquires and to settle a scheme and authorize the whole or any part of the trust property to be sold, mortgaged or exchanged.

Senior Advocate Neeraj Gupta and Advocate Ajeet Pal Singh Jaswal represented the Appellants, while Senior Advocate R.K. Bawa and Advocate Abhinav Thakur represented the Respondents.

Facts of the Case

A civil suit was filed on the ground that Jathia Devi Temple had been constructed/established by Ex-Ruler (Raja Sahib) of Keonthal State, prior to 1871 AD. Shri Jathia Devi Temple and its landed properties were situated over the suit land. The Raja of Keonthal State was the absolute owner of the suit land and prior to 1871 AD, he had constructed the temple for public and religious purposes. The temple was of local deity (Kulja) of residents of the adjoining villages and the Raja of Keonthal had also granted remission of land revenue, in respect of the aforesaid land, in favour of deity. One Arjun (predecessor-in-interest of Defendants) was appointed as Pujari/Mohatmim of the temple, and was authorized to arrange and manage the daily puja archana and functions relating to the deity, and also to look after the suit land. He was required to account for income of temple and deposit the same in the accounts of the deity.

It was averred that there was breach of trust and relief of removal of Defendants from the office of trusteeship of Shri Jathia Devi temple, to settle the scheme for proper management, administration, puja archana, ceremonies, various melas, religious fairs and day to day affairs of the deity/temple, had been sought. Consequently, relief of permanent prohibitory injunction against the Defendants restraining them permanently from digging, excavating soil and stones, selling, alienating, encumbering, transferring or changing the nature of the suit land, in any manner, had been sought. The Single Judge dismissed the Defendants’ Application and noticed that the Plaintiffs filed civil suit under Section 92 of the CPC, for settling a scheme for appointment of the trustees/management of temple Shri Jathia Devi, along with its landed property, the details of which find mentioned in the body of the Civil Suit.

Reasoning

The High Court after hearing the arguments from both sides, observed, “This Court not being denuded of any such jurisdiction should not adjudicate as such on merits in the dispute in question at this stage.”

The Court was of the view that the Single Judge did not fall in any error as such while rejecting the Application for rejection of plaint under Order VII Rule 11 CPC and the Order does not suffer from any infirmity or illegality as the cause of action is a bundle of facts which exists as there are serious allegations made regarding the land which is measuring over 274 13 bighas in total and out of which one of the part of the cause of action as such is also to set aside the sale deed in favour of Defendants measuring 15 bighas, 3 biswas.

“Only on the issue of limitation as such, the plaint is not liable to be rejected as concededly, it is only the defendant Nos.23 and 24 who were raising the boggy of rejection of plaint and wanting in an indirect manner that the other defendants also are beneficiaries as such and it is not disputed by the counsel for the appellants, since it has been held that the plaint cannot be rejected in part as settled by the Apex Court itself consistently”, it said.

Accordingly, the High Court dismissed the Appeal.

Cause Title- Himinder Lal and Others v. Madan Lal and Others (Neutral Citation: 2025:HHC:40682)

Click here to read/download the Judgment