Supreme Court on Mandatory Leave for Section 92 CPC Suits: Bhupinder Singh vs. Joginder Singh (2019)

Date of the Judgment: September 18, 2019
Citation: (2019) INSC 895
Judges: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Deepak Gupta and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Aniruddha Bose.

Is prior permission from the court necessary before filing a lawsuit concerning a public religious trust? The Supreme Court of India addressed this critical procedural question in a case involving a Gurudwara. The core issue revolved around whether a suit filed under Section 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) could proceed without the court’s prior leave. The Court examined the mandatory nature of this requirement and its implications on the maintainability of such suits.

Case Background

The case originated from a dispute regarding the management of a Gurudwara in village Pilkhani, Ambala. The respondents (plaintiffs) claimed the Gurudwara was a public place of worship with free access to the public. They alleged that the appellant’s (defendant’s) father was a Mohtmim (manager) of the Gurudwara. Following the father’s death, a managing committee was formed, including the plaintiffs, to oversee the Gurudwara’s affairs. However, they contended that the appellant was not managing the Gurudwara properly. Consequently, they sought a scheme to be framed under Section 92 of the CPC for the proper administration of the Gurudwara.

The appellant, on the other hand, asserted that the Gurudwara was his private property, inherited from his father, and that the public had no right of access. He argued that the suit under Section 92 of the CPC was not maintainable. An application seeking leave of the court to institute the suit under Section 92 CPC was filed, but no orders were passed on this application.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The suit was filed by the respondents seeking a scheme for the management of the Gurudwara. The appellant contested the suit, claiming the Gurudwara was his private property. The trial court decided the matter on merits, framing a scheme for the management of the Gurudwara. The appellant submitted to the jurisdiction of the trial court without raising any objection about the absence of leave under Section 92 of the CPC. The High Court upheld the trial court’s decision. The appellant then appealed to the Supreme Court.

Legal Framework

The core legal provision in this case is Section 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC), which deals with public charities. It states:

“92. Public charities.­
(1) In the case of any alleged breach of any express or constructive trust created for public purposes of a charitable or religious nature, or where the direction of the Court is deemed necessary for the administration of any such trust, the Advocate­General, or two or more persons having an interest in the trust and having obtained the leave of the Court may institute a suit, whether contentious or not, in the principal Civil Court of original jurisdiction or in any other Court empowered in that behalf by the State Government within the local limits of whose jurisdiction the whole or any part of the subject­matter of the trust is situate to obtain a decree­
(g) settling a scheme. . . .”

This section allows the Advocate General or two or more persons with an interest in a public trust to file a suit for the administration of the trust, provided they have obtained leave from the court. The suit can seek various reliefs, including settling a scheme for the trust’s management.

Arguments

Appellant’s Arguments:

• The appellant contended that the suit was not maintainable as no leave was granted by the court under Section 92 of the CPC before instituting the suit.
• The appellant argued that the grant of leave is a mandatory prerequisite for a suit under Section 92 of the CPC.
• The appellant relied on previous judgments of the Supreme Court to argue that the absence of leave vitiates the entire proceedings.
• The appellant highlighted that in an earlier suit against him, he had successfully objected on the ground that leave had not been granted.

Respondents’ Arguments:

• The respondents argued that the appellant had submitted to the jurisdiction of the court without raising any objection regarding the absence of leave.
• The respondents contended that the appellant had participated in the trial and appellate proceedings without any demur.
• The respondents did not directly address the lack of leave but focused on the fact that the case was decided on merits.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The primary issue before the Supreme Court was:

1. Whether the suit filed under Section 92 of the CPC was maintainable in the absence of prior leave of the court.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:

Judgment

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• The Court relied on R.M. Narayana Chettiar & Another v. L. Lakshmanan Chettiar & Others [(1991) 1 SCC 48]* to reiterate that leave of the court is a precondition for instituting a suit under Section 92 of the CPC.
• The Court also referred to Vidyodaya Trust v. Mohan Prasad R. & Ors. [(2008) 4 SCC 115]* to emphasize the necessity of obtaining leave before filing a suit under Section 92 of the CPC.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court acknowledged that the appellant was legally correct in arguing that the suit should not have been instituted without prior leave. However, the Court also considered the following:

• The appellant had contested the suit without raising the plea that leave of the Court had not been granted.
• Both sides had led evidence, and the matter was decided on merits.
• The appellant had submitted to the jurisdiction of the Trial Court without any objection.
• The appellant was aware of the requirement of leave, having raised this objection in an earlier suit.
• The courts below had come to a finding of fact that the Gurudwara was a public place of worship.

The Court’s reasoning was that while the legal requirement for prior leave is essential, the appellant’s conduct of participating in the trial without raising the issue, coupled with the factual finding that the Gurudwara is a public place of worship, justified not setting aside the lower court’s orders in this specific case.

The Court quoted from the judgment:

“…in every suit filed under Section 92, CPC, the grant of leave is necessary before the suit can be said to be properly instituted.”

“Having held so, we are faced with an unusual situation where the defendant contested the suit without raising the plea that leave of the Court has not been granted.”

“Keeping in view the aforesaid facts, though legally the appellant is right that the suit could not have been instituted without taking leave yet in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, we are not inclined to continue this appeal.”

The Court emphasized that this decision was based on the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case and should not be treated as a precedent.

Key Takeaways

• Prior leave of the court is mandatory before instituting a suit under Section 92 of the CPC.
• The absence of prior leave can render a suit not maintainable.
• However, if a defendant participates in the proceedings without raising the objection of the absence of leave, and the matter is decided on merits, the court may not set aside the orders of the lower courts in peculiar circumstances.
• This judgment is not to be treated as a precedent and applies only to the specific facts of this case.

Directions

No specific directions were issued by the Supreme Court in this case.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that while prior leave is mandatory for suits under Section 92 of the CPC, the court may not set aside the proceedings if the defendant has submitted to the jurisdiction of the court without raising the objection of the absence of leave. This decision does not change the previous position of law that prior leave is mandatory, but it carves out an exception based on the peculiar facts of the case.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the Supreme Court upheld the lower court’s decision, emphasizing that while prior leave is essential for suits under Section 92 of the CPC, the appellant’s conduct of participating in the trial without raising the issue of leave, along with the finding that the Gurudwara is a public place of worship, justified not setting aside the lower court’s orders in this specific case. The Court clarified that this decision is not to be treated as a precedent.