- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1357 WP No. 147043 of 2020 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF JANUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ WRIT PETITION NO. 147043 OF 2020 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: STATE BANK OF INDIA KESHWAPUR, HUBBALLI, BRANCH MANAGER, NOW REPRESENTED BY ASSISTANT GENERAL MANAGER …PETITIONER (BY SRI K.L.PATIL, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. HANUMANT DEVAR TRUST, KESHWAPUR, HUBBALLI BY ITS TRUSTEES MAHADEVAPPA S/O. GURULINGAPPA PUJAR, AGE 74 YEARS, OCC- PUJARIKE R/O. KESHWAPUR, HANUMANT DEVAR TEMPLE, HUBBALLI, DIST-DHARWAD. 2. SMT.GEETA W/O. IRAPPA HUGAR, AGE: 49 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD, R/O: KESHWAPUR, HANUMANT DEVAR TEMPLE, HUBBALLI, DIST: DHARWAD. ASHPAK KASHIMSA MALAGALADINNI Digitally signed by ASHPAK KASHIMSA MALAGALADINNI Location: High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench Date: 2025.01.27 16:33:57 +0530 - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1357 WP No. 147043 of 2020 3. SANJEEVKUMAR S/O.MAHADEVAPPA PUJAR, AGE: 39 YEARS, OCC: PUJARIKE, R/O: KESHWAPUR, HANUMANT DEVAR TEMPLE, HUBBALLI, DIST: DHARWAD. 4. SMT.MANJULA W/O. VINAY PATIL, AGE: 37 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD, R/O: KESHWAPUR, HANUMANT DEVAR TEMPLE, HUBBALLI, DIST: DHARWAD. 5. SMT.ANJANA W/O.SUDHIR VEENEKAR AGE: 35 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD, R/O: NEAR JAIN MANDIR, NAVALGUND. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI GANESH RAIBAGI, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENTS NO.1 TO 3) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI THEREBY QUASHING THE ORDER DATED 20.06.2018 PASSED IN O.S.NO.07/ 2018 ON I.A.NO.1, ON THE FILE OF PRINCIPAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, DHARWAD VIDE ANNEXURE-E, TO THE WRIT PETITION AND PASS ANY OTHER ORDER OR DIRECTION AS THIS HON’BLE COURT DEEMS FIT IN VIEW OF FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING B GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1357 WP No. 147043 of 2020 CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ) 1. The petitioner is before this Court seeking for the following reliefs: (A) Issue a writ in the nature of certiorari thereby quashing the order dated 20.06.2018 passed in O.S.No.07/2018 on I.A.No.1 on the file of Principal District and Sessions Judge, Dharwad vide Annexure-E to the writ petition. (B) Pass any other order or direction as this Hon’ble Court deems fit in view of facts and circumstances of the case in the interest of justice and equity. 2. Respondent had filed a suit in OS.No.7 of 2018 for recovery of arrears of leasehold rent and possession before the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Dharwad. In the said suit an application under Section 92 of the code of Civil Procedure has been filed seeking for leave to file the suit, which came to be allowed vide order dated 20.6.2018. It is challenging the same, the petitioner is before this Court. 3. The petitioner being defendant therein upon appearance had sought to contend that the - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1357 WP No. 147043 of 2020 Principal District Judge would not have jurisdiction and the application filed under Section 92 of CPC was not maintainable and has sought to address arguments in the same. The said request was rejected vide impugned order dated 22.8.2019 on the ground that the application under Section 92 of CPC had already been allowed. It is challenging the same the petitioner is before this Court. 4. The submission of learned counsel Sri K.L.Patil appearing for the petitioner is that the suit being one for recovery of rentals and for possession would have to be filed before the jurisdictional Court and not before the Principal District Judge on the ground that the petitioners are trustees. His submission is that this being a general suit for recovery of rentals and possession, the same would not come within the purview of Section 92 of the code of Civil Procedure, in this regard he relies upon a decision of this Court passed on 19.06.2023 in W.P.No.203194 of 2022, more - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1357 WP No. 147043 of 2020 particularly in paragraph Nos.11, 12, 13 and 14, which are reproduced hereunder for easy reference. “11. A perusal of the various matters enumerated under Sub Section (1) of Section 92 of CPC would indicate that a suit relating to removal of a trustee, appointment of new trustee, vesting the property in a trustee, direction to a trustee, accounts and enquiries of the trust, usage of the trust property for a particular purpose, settling the claim, etc. is carried under sub section (ii) of Section 92 of CPC. 12. Clause-(h) is a residuary provision which deals with granting of any such further or other relief as the nature of the case may require. This residuary provision can only relate to the subject matter enumerated in Clauses-(a) to (g) and would have to be read in conjunction with the said clause. Clause- (h) has no independent existence nor does it provide for an independent subject matter so as to make it applicable to a suit for permanent injunction filed by the trust against a third party. It is only in respect of the subject matter at Clause-(a) to (g), that leave of the Court is required to be obtained and in connection thereto, any such other further reliefs in the interest of justice or in the nature of the case may also be sought for. 13. The said Section 92 of CPC has been introduced for the purposes of proper administration of a trust and as such, deals with the internal management of the trust and the management of the trust properties. 14. The suit filed by the trust against a third party as done in this case, in my considered opinion would not come within the purview of Section 92 of CPC. The said suit having been filed in the normal operation of the trust for the trust to preserve and protect its properties and or claim such other properties and not relating to - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1357 WP No. 147043 of 2020 the management of the trust would be outside the purview of Section 92 of CPC. If such an interpretation is taken up, then a public charitable trust would never be able to file any suit for bare injunction, recovery of money, specific performance, declaration or the like, thus, impending effective functioning and operation of the trust. “ 5. Placing the reliance on the above Judgment, he submits that the above petition is required to be allowed. The order passed on the application under Section 92 is to be set aside and the suit is to be dismissed. 6. Learned counsel for the respondent would however submit that plaintiffs being trustees, the trust and all the trustees would be required to file application under Section 92 of CPC seeking leave of the Principal District Judge and proceed with the suit before the Principal District Judge and as such, he submits that the order passed by the Principal District Judge is proper and correct. 7. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and respondents. Perused the papers. - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1357 WP No. 147043 of 2020 8. The lis in the above matter has been decided by this Court vide order dated 19.06.2023 in W.P.No.203194 of 2022 and this Court has categorically come to a conclusion that in a suit for bare injunction, recovery of money and specific performance, declaration or the like, the same would not come in the purview of Section 92 of the CPC and as such, it would not be required for such an application to be filed and leave to be obtained from the Principal District Judge. This Court has also come to a conclusion that the trustees could file necessary suit for any civil remedies against 3rd party which is not covered under sub-section (1) of section 92 before the appropriate Court having territorial and pecuniary jurisdiction. In the present matter, the suit being one for recovery of rentals and for possession not coming under any of the clauses and enumerated any of the items enumerated in Clause A to H of Sub-section (1) of section 92, I am of the - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1357 WP No. 147043 of 2020 considered opinion that firstly the plaintiff and secondly the Court fell into error in considering the suit to be one under Section 92 of CPC, in that view of the matter, reserving liberty to the plaintiffs to file such suit for recovery of rentals and possession, I pass the following : ORDER (i) Writ petition is allowed. (ii) The order dated 20.6.2018 passed in O.S.No.7 of 2018 on I.A.no.1 is set aside. Consequently, IA.No.1 is dismissed. Consequently, suit is dismissed. By exercising power under Rule 10 of order VII of CPC, the plant is returned to the plaintiffs to be presented before the Court of appropriate jurisdiction. The formal order in relating to return of the plaint to be made by the Principal District Judge complying with Sub Rule 2 of Rule 10 of order VII of CPC. - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1357 WP No. 147043 of 2020 (iii) This Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the suit. (iv) All contentions are kept open. Sd/- (SURAJ GOVINDARAJ) JUDGE CKK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 68