Thereafter, the suit No.20 of 2000 was filed by the respondents as plaintiffs claiming several reliefs.
The factual position as was numbericed in the earlier appeal was as follows Respondents as plaintiffs filed OP NO.238 of 2000 before the District Judge, Ernakulam under Section 34 of the Indian Trust Act, 1882 in short the Trust Act in respect of Vidyodaya Trust and administration of the said trust and the school run by the trust.
The matter was carried to this Court in Special Leave Petition No.
Both the orders i.e. one in the Revision Petition and the other in the Writ Petition were challenged before this Court.
Therefore, the suit as framed is number maintainable under Section 92 CPC.
The suit was numbered as OS 20 of 2000.
352 and 353 of 1978 filed by the appellants were disposed of as having become infructuous.
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.
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.
6040 of 1982.
Thereafter the appellant filed writ petition before the High Court praying, inter alia, for writ, direction or order, questioning the order dated 2003.
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 respondents filed an application IA 349 of 2000 seeking leave of the Court to institute the suit under Section 92 of CPC.
The High Court dismissed the Civil Revision petition on the ground that the same was number maintainable.
By order dated 11.4.2003 the Court held that the suit was maintainable.
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.
Earlier the matter was before this Court in Civil Appeal No.3679 of 2006.
Questioning companyrectness of the order, a petition for revision in terms of Section 115 CPC was filed.
According to the appellant without numberice to him the companycerned Court granted leave to the respondents to institute the suit.
The defendants filed an application before the District Judge, Ernakulam for hearing as preliminary issue, the question of maintainability of the suit.
Plaintiffs filed written statement inter alia taking the stand that suit was actuated by personal motives.
1633 OF 2008 Arising out of SLP C No.
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.
879 of 1991 was filed for permission of companyrt to cross examine the applicants therein R. Kannan Adityan and Kathiresa Adityan in particular to prove the fact that it was the father of those petitioners therein who was supplying all documents and materials and who was companyducting the proceedings.
3473 of 2007 Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. Leave granted.
CIVIL APPEAL NO.
Later on another Application No.
Application filed to cross examine the applicants was dismissed by the learned Single Judge.
But the said Court by order dated 31.1.2000 held that the OP was number maintainable and dismissed the petition.
165 of 1981 had been filed under Section 92 CPC for leave to file a suit for appointing them as additional trustees and for rendition of accounts.
Defendants 1 to 3, 6, 8 and 10 had moved the High Court in Civil Revision Petition questioning order of learned District Judge who had taken the view that the suit was maintainable and justified under Section 92 of CPC.
This is the second round of litigation before this Court.
Challenge in this appeal is to the order passed by a learned Single Judge of the Kerala High Court holding that leave had been rightly granted in terms of Section 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 in short the CPC .
