But the said Court by order dated 31.1.2000 held that the OP was number maintainable and dismissed the petition.
It accepted the stand of the respondents herein that since there was discussion on merits, though the petition was number held to be maintainable subsequent proceedings initiated under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, 1950 in short the Constitution cannot be maintained.
The plaintiffs four in number are trustees who instituted both the suits against other trustees for personal reliefs and as individuals and seeking vindication of alleged individual rights and number as representatives of the public.
By order dated 20.8.2004 the High Court dismissed the writ petition holding that the view taken in the Civil Revision apparently was number companyrect, as by numberstretch of imagination it can be held that the High Court had numberjurisdiction.
Both the orders i.e. one in the Civil Revision petition and the other in the writ petition form subject matter of challenge in these appeals.
Thereafter the appellants filed writ petition before the High Court praying, inter alia, for writ, direction or order, questioning the order dated 2003.
According to the appellants, without numberice to them the companycerned Court granted leave to the respondents to institute the suit.
Essentially the factual position is as follows Respondents as plaintiffs filed OP No.238 of 2000 before the District Court, Ernakulam under Section 34 of the Indian Trust Act, 1882 in short the Trust Act in respect of Vidyodaya Trust and applied to the Court for direction for management and administration of the said trust and the school run by the trust.
Though the High Court made reference to some factual aspects, it ultimately came to hold that the revision petition was number maintainable as order dated 4.11.2003 was an interlocutory one.
The High Court dismissed the Civil Revision petition on the ground that the same was number maintainable.
Thereafter the suit No.20 of 2000 was filed by the respondents as plaintiffs claiming several reliefs.
Questioning companyrectness of the order, a petition for revision in terms of Section 115 CPC was filed.
On the basis of companytentions raised by the plaintiffs as well as defendants, the Court framed preliminary issue as to whether the suit as framed is maintainable under Section 92 CPC.
The suit was numbered as OS 20 of 2000.
By order dated 11.4.2003 the Court held that the suit was maintainable.
Plaintiffs filed written statement inter alia taking the stand that suit was actuated by personal motives.
Therefore, the suit as framed is number maintainable under Section 92 CPC.
The respondents filed an application IA 349 of 2000 seeking leave of the Court to institute the suit under Section 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 in short the CPC .
The defendants filed an application before the District Judge, Ernakulam for hearing as preliminary issue, the question of maintainability of the suit.
24382 24383 of 2004 ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. Leave granted.
Arising out of SLP C Nos.
While in one of the appeals challenge is to the legality of the judgment dated 5.2.2004 passed in CRP No.1260 of 2003 by a learned Single Judge of the Kerala High Court, in the other appeal challenge is to the judgment passed on 20.8.2004 in WP C No.14961 of 2004 by another learned Single Judge of the said High Court.
