- (1.) HEARD Sri L. S. Venkatakrishna, counsel for the revision petitioners and Sri S. V. Shastri, learned counsel for the respondents. This civil revision petition arises from the judgment and order dated 19th september, 1997 in miscellaneous case No. 1094 of 1994, whereby the respondents sought the leave of the court to institute the suit in question under Section 92, Civil Procedure Code, as according to plaintiff/applicant, the property was a public trust property. The court below came to the conclusion that there cannot be any doubt that the 1st respondent-trust is constituted, as public trust and not a family private trust and it granted the leave.
(2.) THE opposite party, defendant mentioned in the plaint, feeling aggrieved from the order have come up before this court by petition under Section 115.
(3.) LEARNED counsel for the revision petitioners contends that the court below acted illegally in granting the permission for leave to sue under Section 92. Learned counsel for the revision petitioners further contended that the court below erred in recording the finding that the 1st respondent is a public trust and on that basis, illegally granted the permission. Learned counsel further contended that the order in question will have the effect of jeopardising his defence if and when raised denying nature of trust to be public trust and the trial and disposition or decision thereof. So he has come up with this revision. Learned counsel for the petitioner in support of his contention that revision is maintainable made reference to the decision of this court in D. Achariah Setty and others v D. Adinarayana Setty and others , learned counsel also made reference to another decision, namely decision of Punjab and Haryana High Courtin the case of Dr. Ram Parkash v Dayal Chand. On the question whether a trust is a public trust or a private trust, learned counsel for the petitioners invited my attention to the decision of the Supreme Court in Deoki Nandan v Murlidhar and others , as well as to the decision of their lordships of the Supreme Court in Bihar State Board of Religious Trusts (Patna) v Mahanth Sri Biseshwar Das, and lastly to two other decisions of their lordships of the Supreme Court in the case of swami Parmatmanand Saraswati and another v Ramji Tripathi and another , and to the decision of the Supreme Court in Charan Singh and another v Darshan Singh and others.;