Munshilal Jain and Another vs Kaushal Chand Patani and Others

Rampal Singh, J.—The appellants have preferred this appeal under Order 43, Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, against the order passed by the District Judge, Gwalior on 12-4-1984, under Order 39, Rules 1 & 2 of the Code.

Respondents No. 1 and 2 filed a civil suit u/s 8 of the Madhya Pradesh Public Trusts Act of 1951 against the appellants and respondents No. 3 and 4, in the Court of District Judge, Gwalior, for declaration and permanent injunction.

There is a Jain temple known as ''Mandir Shri Parasnath Digambar Jain Terah Panthi'' in Chitera Oli, Lashkar Gwalior. The affairs of this temple and its movable and immovable properties were being managed by the persons appointed by the Panchayat. Respondents No. 1 and 2 were appointed so by the Panchayat. Appellant No. 1 applied to the Registrar, Public Trusts, Gwalior, u/s 4 of the M. P. Public Trusts Act of 1951 for registering this temple and its properties as public Trust. The Registrar respondent No.3, after enquiry u/s 5 of the Act registered it as a public Trust and declared it as a Public Trust u/s 6 of the Act.

Respondent No. 1 and 2 filed a suit u/s 8 of the Act for declaration and permanent injunction against the present appellants and respondents No.3 and 4 for setting aside the findings of the Registrar and prayed for a declaration that the suit property belongs to ''Khandelwal Panchayat.'' They also prayed that they have been appointed by the said Panchayat to manage the affairs of the suit property. They further prayed that the appellants No. 1 and 2 have no right to interfere in the affairs of the temple and its property. They also prayed that the declaration of the Trust dated 9-12-1982 by the respondent No. 3 be set aside.

Respondent No. 1 and 2 also submitted an application under Order 39, Rs. 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, praying that the operation of the order of respondent No. 3, dated 9-12-1982 be stayed and order be passed restraining the appellants from interfering with the management of the suit property during the pendency of the suit.

The trial Court refused to pass the temporary injunction against the order of the Registrar, but issued it against the appellants and directed them to maintain the status quo on the date of the suit. Aggrieved by this injunction order, the appellants have preferred this appeal.

Appellants are the two working Trustees from the eleven, appointed by the Registrar, respondent No. 3, on 9-12-1982. Shri A B. Mishra, Learned Counsel for the appellants has vehemently argued that only two trustees were joined as defendants in the suit but rest have not been made a party and, therefore, they being necessary parties to the suit, the suit suffers from the defect of non-joinder of the parties. What he means to submit is that the Trust and the Trustees being necessary parties they ought to have been joined as defendants, which the plaintiff have failed to do. He has drawn my attention to a judgment of this Court, i. e., Ram Janki Raj Mandir Vs. Haridas Guru Sarjoodas and others,

It is no doubt true that section 8 of the Act does not lay down as to who shall be joined as defendants in the suit, but on principles applicable, generally to suits of this nature, it is obvious that persons vitally interested in the findings sought to be challenged; who would be adversely affected, if the finding is set aside, should be joined as defendants. There being no doubt that the Trust having been declared as a public Trust by the Registrar, the trustees appointed by the Registrar have been put in charge of the management of the Trust-property. As such, they are interested in the question whether the Trust is a Public Trust or not. Their very existence as Trustees and the duties that they are required to perform in that capacity depend entirely on this question. They are no doubt necessary parties to the suit and as such they should be joined as parties.

But Rule 9 of Order 1 of the CPC lays down that no suit shall be defeated by reason of misjoinder or non-joinder of the parties and the Court may in every suit deal with the matter in controversy so far as regards the rights and interests of the parties actually before it.

Only appellants were impleaded as a party in the suit by the plaintiff. If the plaintiff, at the time of filing the suit, had any apprehension or grievance from other trustees, he would have impleaded them as defendants, When and if he has cause of action against them, he can file the application under the provisions of Order 1 CPC and can also amend the plaint. But passing of the temporary injunction by the trial Court, only against the appellants cannot be said to be against the provisions of law.

Injunction is a discretionary matter. In India it is based upon the principles of equity. Nothing has been said-that the hands of the plaintiffs were dirty. In absence of any allegation by the appellants of this nature, it can be said that the conduct of the plaintiff/respondent was clean. Ordinarily the order of injunction passed by the trial Court, after exercising carefully the judicial discretion, should not be interfered with. Temporary injunction can be passed against those only against whom the plaintiff-Seeks the remedy. There is no illegality apparent in the impugned order and therefore, it deserves to be maintained.

In the result, the appeal filed by the appellants is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.