Justice M. Nagaprasanna, Karnataka High Court
Suit Filed U/S 92 CPC Becomes Suit Only After Grant Of Leave Failing Which It Remains A Scheme Plaint Only: Karnataka High Court
|The Karnataka High Court remarked that Section 92 of CPC is not merely a procedural provision – it is a statutory bulwark, that seeks to shield public charitable and religious trusts from vexatious litigation and whimsical interference.
The Karnataka High Court observed that a Suit filed under Section 92 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) becomes a Suit only after grant of leave, failing which, it remains a scheme plaint only.
The Court observed thus in Writ Petitions in which the grievance was related to certain Orders passed by the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Mandya in a Miscellaneous Petition.
A Single Bench of Justice M. Nagaprasanna enunciated, “The requirement of granting of leave is not a perfunctory formality; it is the very gateway through which jurisdiction of the Civil Court gets activated. Until such leave is granted, the plaint remains legally inert, which would be a stillborn legal proceeding. The orders dated 02-5-2025 and 11-6-2025 are thus passed in the absence of jurisdiction. They rest upon a slender reed of exigency namely, the approach of summer vacation. The orders are thus bereft of any statutory foundation. The concerned Court without first breathing life into the suit through grant of leave, assumed a jurisdiction, it did not possess. A suit filed under Section 92 – a scheme suit becomes a suit only after grant of leave, failing which, it only remains a scheme plaint.”
The Bench remarked that Section 92 of CPC is not merely a procedural provision – it is a statutory bulwark, that seeks to shield public charitable and religious trusts from vexatious litigation and whimsical interference.
Advocates Sruti Chaganti and Maitreyi Krishnan appeared for the Petitioners while Senior Advocate Ashok Haranahalli appeared for the Respondents.
Brief Facts
The Respondent was the People’s Education Trust (PET) running several educational institutions. In 1988, a trust deed was executed by PET and thereon Rules and Bye-laws were framed. Venting out certain grievances, the Petitioners approached the District Court by filing a Suit under Section 92 CPC, a scheme suit for the purpose of framing a scheme for proper governance and administration of the trust. Along with the plaint, an Application was filed seeking leave to institute the Suit. Another Application was preferred under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of CPC, seeking Order of restraint, restraining the Trust and its members or the nominated President from functioning or continuing as such for any further period without being elected by way of secret ballot.
Subsequently, a resolution was passed by the trustees continuing the 2nd Respondent as the President and making the same outcome of the subject proceedings instituted invoking Section 92 CPC. Again, an Application was preferred under Section 151 CPC seeking a direction to conduct elections by a secret ballot. All these applications were pending and the concerned the Court passed an Interim Order constituting an ad hoc committee consisting of all the trustees for governing the trust and a direction was issued to the Respondents to submit daily reports to the Court and restraining them from using their designation as President and Secretary. Hence, the case was before the High Court.
Reasoning
The High Court in the above regard, elucidated, “The Mandate of Section 92, inter alia is when two or more persons come together and institute a suit, in the nature of a Scheme, to protect the interest or functioning of the trust, which according to them is being run contrary to public interest, it becomes a suit not merely by filing; it becomes a suit when the concerned Court grants leave to institute the suit. The mandate of Section 92 is thus, a suit gets life, only when the Court grants leave. Without the Court granting leave, after hearing the parties, the said suit is stillborn, no right gets crystalized in favour of plaintiffs, who prefer to institute a scheme suit to insist on the Court to pass interlocutory orders, pending application, seeking grant of leave.”
The Court noted that the mandate of Section 92 is a jurisdictional issue and the District Court before whom the plaint is presented would get jurisdiction only on grant of leave.
“In the case at hand, the application seeking leave is still pending consideration. Therefore, the plaint has not turned itself into a suit, as it still remains as a plaint. On a plaint which is yet to get leave to become a suit, the Court goes on passing certain orders. The emergent situation noticed by the Court, shocks the conscience of this Court”, it added.
Furthermore, the Court said that summer vacation is ensuing and it was the last working day for the Civil Court; therefore, in larger interest and to protect the reputation of well-known institution in Mandya City, the Order is passed.
“It is ununderstandable as to how an ensuing summer vacation can become an emergent circumstance to pass an order giving plethora of directions for formation of a committee; the committee’s day-to-day’s proceedings be placed before the Court and so on and so forth”, it also remarked.
The Court observed that since the issue of jurisdiction would cut at the root of the matter, all Orders passed in a plaint, which is yet to become a suit, by grant of leave, are all non-est in the eyes of law, non-est for the reason that they are borne out of the proceedings on which the Court is yet to get jurisdiction to pass.
“In that light the orders so passed on 02-05-2025 and 11-06-2025 are necessarily to be obliterated”, it concluded.
Accordingly, the High Court dismissed the Writ Petitions.
Cause Title- S. Panchalingu & Ors. v. People’s Education Trust (R) Mandya & Ors. [Case Number: WRIT PETITION No.16971 OF 2025 (GM – CPC)]