- (1.) -BY means of this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have challenged the order dated 3. 4. 2008 passed by the District Judge, Ghaziabad in proceedings under section 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure, (for short, 'the Code') allowing the applications moved by respondents 9 and 10, under Order I, Rule 10 of the Code for their impleadment, under section 151 seeking injunction and Order XXVI, Rule 9 for appointment of a Commissioner.
(2.) FACTS giving rise to dispute are as under : sri Vir Digambar Jain Dharamshala and Sri Mahavir Jain Dharmarth Aushadhalai is stated to be a private trust created through a trust deed executed by one late Lala Nanhe Mal Jain. Petitioner No. 2 claimants to be the managing trustee of the said Trust. An application under section 92 of the Code was moved by opposite party Nos. 1 to 4 seeking permission to file a suit on the allegations that it was a public trust with a prayer to remove the trustee and to frame a scheme of administration for managing the affairs of the trust and or giving custody of the trust property to the managing committee and to submit the accounts. The proceeding was registered as Misc. Case No. 48 of 2004 and was contested by the petitioners. During the pendency of the proceedings respondents 9 and 10 filed Writ Petition No. 9014 of 2008 in the nature of a public interest litigation alleging that the trust was being mismanaged. This Court, finding that proceedings under section 92 of the code were pending, disposed of the petition with the liberty to the applicants therein to join in the said proceedings. Thereafter, respondents 9 and 10 moved an application under Order I, Rule 10 of the Code seeking impleadment in Misc. Case No. 48 of 2004. An application under section 151 of the Code for maintaining status-quo with respect to the trust property and another application under Order XXVI, Rule 9 of the code for appointment of a Commissioner to make inspection and submit details of the trust property was also moved. The applications were resisted by the petitioners by filing objections. District Judge vide order dated 3. 4. 2008 allowed all the three applications.
(3.) I have heard Sri Rakesh Pande for the petitioners, Sri Anoop Trivedi for respondent Nos. 1 to 4 and Sri Ravi Agarwal for respondents 9 and 10.;