Civil Revision No.4259 of 2009 (1)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
Civil Revision No.4259 of 2009
Date of Decision: 30.7.2009
Ashok Kumar ......Appellant
Versus
Surajram Memorial Foundation Charitable Trust and others
.......Respondents
CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA.
1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
2. To be referred to the Reporters or not?
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?
Present: Shri S.M. Wadhera, Advocate, for the petitioner.
HEMANT GUPTA, J. (Oral).
The defendant is in revision aggrieved against the order passed
by the learned trial Court on 24.4.2009, whereby an application filed by the
defendant under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC, was dismissed.
Suit has been filed by the plaintiff-trust through one of the
trustees, namely, Smt. Bimla Rani, on the basis of resolution dated
4.10.2006, passed by the trustees, authorising her to sign all documents in
connection with cases, suits and to do all things necessary for pursuing the
cases/suits. Such resolution has been signed by the Chairman of the trust
and two other trustees along with Bimla Devi in the form of her acceptance.
The learned trial Court dismissed the said application holding that there is
no infirmity regarding maintainability of the suit which could result in
rejection of the plaint as such and dismissed his application.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to Clause 5 of
Civil Revision No.4259 of 2009 (2)
the Trust Deed, to contend that power to institute; conduct; defend,
compound or abandon any legal proceedings, is either with a managing
trustee or with the trustees acting together, but the Trust Deed does not
authorise delegation of power to contest suit or legal proceedings in favour
of one of the trustees. Reliance is placed upon Section 47 of the Indian
Trusts Act, 1882 (for short `the Act’) and a Full Bench judgment of Gujarat
High Court reported as Atmaram Ranchhodbhai v. Gulamhusein Gulam
Mohiyaddin and another, AIR 1973 Gujarat 113.
However, I do not find any merit in the argument raised by the
learned counsel for the petitioner.
Clause 5 and 6 of the Trust Deed, appended with the petition,
read as under:-
“5. The Managing Trustee or the Trustees shall have
the power to institute, conduct, defend, compound or
abandon any legal proceedings by or against the Trust its
officer of otherwise concerning the affairs of the Trust
and also to satisfaction of any debts due and of any
claims of demands by or against the Trust to arbitration
and to observe and perform the awards, to engage
counsels, advocate, lawyers, to appoint attorneys, to
execute in their favour the necessary vakalatnamas or
power of attorney, to appoint permanent legal adviser to
the Trust or such representative as may be agreed, to
appoint or dismiss managers, secretaries, servants and
necessary staff, to open any bank account in the name of
the trust to operate upto such account and withdraw
money therefrom, to grant receipts, releases of other
discharges for money due or payable to the Trust.
6. The Managing Trustee or the Trustees may
delegate any power to any or more Trustees, by a
Resolution of the Trustees to effect, to act jointly or
Civil Revision No.4259 of 2009 (3)severally, with powers to sub-delegate his or their
powers, to anybody whom they consider fit for that
purposes by means of power of attorney or attorneys
executed for that purposes or by letter or letters.”
Clause 6 of the Trust Deed empowers the Managing Trustee or the
Trustees to delegate “any power” to any or more Trustees by a Resolution
of the Trustees to act jointly or severally. In terms of Clause 6 of the Trust
Deed, the Managing Trustee or the Trustees could delegate any power and
such power will include the power under Clause 5 of the Trust Deed in
favour of one or more Trustees, jointly or severally. Therefore, in terms of
the conditions of the Trust, Smt. Bimla Rani has been duly authorised by
the Trustees to file the suit on behalf of the Trust.
Section 47 of the Act is not applicable in the present case in as
much as the instrument of Trust itself provides the power to delegate any of
the duties. Therefore, neither the said provision nor the judgment referred to
which interprets Section 47 of the Act, is applicable to the facts of the
present case.
Consequently, I do not find any patent illegality or irregularity
in the impugned order, which may warrant interference by this Court in
exercise of its revisional jurisdiction. The application under Order 7 Rule
11 CPC is wholly frivolous and has been filed with the intention to delay
the proceedings. Hence, the revision petition filed with the same intention is
dismissed with costs of Rs.1000/-. Such costs shall also be the costs in the
proceedings as well.
(HEMANT GUPTA)
30.7.2009 JUDGE
ds