Summary
A defendant challenged a scheme for managing a public Gurudwara because the application for leave under section 92 CPC had never been decided. The Court held that leave was a necessary prerequisite and could not be presumed. Nevertheless, given the defendant’s unqualified participation, the established public character and the appropriate management scheme, it dismissed the appeal on expressly exceptional, non-precedential facts.
Issues
- Whether leave under section 92 could be presumed despite absence of an order.
- Whether the exceptional circumstances warranted disturbing the management scheme.
Provisions considered
- Section 92(1), including clause (g), Code of Civil Procedure, 1908Leave was a condition precedent for the private plaintiffs’ suit seeking a public-trust management scheme; no grant could be presumed. (¶¶ 4, 5, 6, 7)
Held
- Leave must precede proper institution of a section 92 suit by interested persons. Notice to proposed defendants should ordinarily precede grant, though urgent circumstances may justify an initial ex parte grant subject to an application for revocation. The High Court’s presumed-leave reasoning was rejected. (¶¶ 5, 6, 7)
- The defendant knowingly contested the merits without objecting, although he had successfully raised the same objection in earlier litigation. The public character was established, including admitted village donations, and the scheme appropriately vested management in an elected village body. These exceptional facts led the Court to decline interference despite the correct legal objection. (¶¶ 8, 9, 10, 11)
Result
The civil appeal was dismissed. The Court expressly stated that its disposition rested on the peculiar facts and circumstances and should not be treated as precedent.