JUDGMENT Hon’ble S.U. Khan, J.—In this case on 31.01.2011 after hearing arguments of learned counsel for the applicants and Sri Anurag Singh in person for the respondents, the following order was passed: “Heard Sri Rahul Agarwal, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Anurag Singh respondent No. 3 and General Secretary of respondent No. 1 in person. He states that respondent Nos. 2 to 4 have also authorised him to argue the matter on their behalf. In any case service upon all the respondents is sufficient however no one either in person or through advocate apart from Sri Anurag Singh has appeared. Judgment reserved. Sri Anurag Singh states that if in the opinion of the Court in order to bring the suit under Section 92 C.P.C. some amendments are required to be made in the plaint then he is ready to apply for such amendments. Learned counsel for the applicant has argued that no opportunity to amend the plaint in order to bring the same within the frame work of Section 92 shall be granted. This aspect will be considered while dictating the judgment. Stay order dated 18.11.2008 which according to the learned counsel for the applicant has expired is revived and shall remain in operation until delivery of the judgment. List for delivery of judgment on 21.02.2011.” 2. This revision under Section 115 C.P.C. has been filed against the order dated 30.10.2006 passed by District Judge, Mathura allowing an application under Section 92 C.P.C. for granting permission to file the suit by the plaintiff-respondent Nos. 1 to 4. Copy of the proposed plaint which was filed along with application for permission to file the same under Section 92 C.P.C. is Annexure-2 to the affidavit filed in support of stay application in this revision. The dispute relates to different properties of Church including land, buildings, hospitals, orphanage, schools, colleges, libraries (para 5 of the plaint). Plaintiff No. 1 is Executive Board of Methodist Episcopal Church in Southern Asia (M.E. Church). It is alleged in Para-8 of the plaint that in 1942 a separate church organisation was registered in the name of defendant-applicant No. 1 as Methodist Church in Southern Asia. It is mentioned in para 9 of the plaint that since 07.01.1981 defendant-applicant No. 1 illegally started claiming to hold all properties of the trust which till then were held by the plaintiff No. 1. It is mentioned in para 9 of the plaint that since 07.01.1981 defendant-applicant No. 1 illegally started claiming to hold all properties of the trust which till then were held by the plaintiff No. 1. In para 16 of the plaint, it is mentioned that plaintiff No. 1 is a registered society registered on 25.11.1909 under Society Registration Act and last renewal was granted on 27.12.2005. In para 17, details of 12 properties allegedly belonging to the plaintiff and sold by the defendant No. 1 have been given. Thereafter, in para 18 details of three properties are given which according to the plaintiffs, were likely to be sold by the defendants. Thereafter, further allegations have been levelled against the defendants like demolition of churches of historical importance, destroying the hospital at Mathura. In Schedule A of the plaint the details of the properties alleged to belong to the plaintiff have be given. Thereafter in para 26, it is mentioned that on 23.12.2005 defendant Nos. 1 to 3 tried to prevent the plaintiff Nos. 2 to 5 from entering the Methodist hospital, Mathura. In para 29 it is mentioned that defendants formed and got illegal society registered to grab Methodist Hospital Jaisinghpura (Mathura) on 13.3.2006. 3. Prior to passing order on the application under Section 92 C.P.C., temporary injunction order was passed by District Judge, Mathura on 29.5.2006 restraining the defendants from selling, destroying, transferring or altering management of the properties of the trust. However, the said order was set aside by the High Court in F.A.F.O. No. 1713 of 2006. The learned District Judge in his order has held that defendants had deliberately filed their objections beyond the time limit set by the High Court in the aforesaid F.A.F.O. hence that would not be considered and in view of the conduct of the defendants it was not necessary to hear them before deciding the question of grant of permission/leave under Section 92 C.P.C. In para 11 of its judgment learned District Judge has held that at the stage of deciding application under Section 92 C.P.C. only averments of the plaint were to be seen and not the written statement. 4. It is also observed by the District Judge that plaintiff never surrendered or transferred their properties to the defendants. 5. 4. It is also observed by the District Judge that plaintiff never surrendered or transferred their properties to the defendants. 5. From the impugned order, it is quite clear that arguments of learned counsel for the defendants-applicants were heard and considered by the learned District Judge. The District Judge rejected the contention of the defendants that the suit was for the interest of individual persons. Thereafter details of misappropriation of the properties as alleged by the plaintiff have been given in the said order and finding has been recorded that as stated in plaint, defendants are transferring, damaging and selling the properties of the trust and some improvement is required in the management and administration of the properties of the trust/church. The argument of learned counsel for the defendants that relief claimed in the proposed plaint are not covered under Section 92 C.P.C. was noted and rejected. In respect of certain other objections regarding the maintainability of the suit, the Court observed that those objections could be seen if permission for filing the suit was granted and written statement by the defendant was filed and issues were framed and evidence was adduced. Different judgments cited by the parties were also considered by the learned District Judge. Ultimately permission was granted. 6. Learned counsel for the defendant-applicant has firstly argued that the plaintiffs’ society is no more in existence as its registration has been cancelled. The plaintiff in this regard asserted that the cancellation order was illegal and is subjudice in a writ petition which is pending in this Court. 7. Copies of the innumerable judgments/authorities have been filed by both the parties. Section 92(1), C.P.C. is quoted below : “92. The plaintiff in this regard asserted that the cancellation order was illegal and is subjudice in a writ petition which is pending in this Court. 7. Copies of the innumerable judgments/authorities have been filed by both the parties. Section 92(1), C.P.C. is quoted below : “92. Public charities.—(1) In the case of any alleged breach of any express or constructive trust created for public purposes of a charitable or religious nature, or where the direction of the Court is deemed necessary for the administration of any such trust, the Advocate-General, or two or more persons having an interest in the trust and having obtained the leave of the Court may institute a suit, whether contentious or not, in the principal Civil Court of original jurisdiction or in any other Court empowered in that behalf by the State Government within the local limits of whose jurisdiction the whole or any part of the subject-matter of the trust is situate to obtain a decree- (a) removing any trustee; (b) appointing a new trustee; (c) vesting any properly in a trustee; (cc) directing a trustee who has been removed or a person who has ceased to be a trustee, to deliver possession of any trust property in his possession to the person entitled to the possession of such property; (d) directing accounts and inquiries; (e) declaring what proportion of the trust property or of the interest therein shall be allocated to any particular object of the trust; (f) authorizing the whole or any part of the trust property to be let, sold., mortgaged or exchanged; (g) settling a scheme; or (h) granting such further or other relief as the nature of the case may require.” 8. Learned counsel for the applicant has mainly placed reliance upon the Supreme Court judgment in Vidyodaya Trust v. Mohan Prasad R. and others, AIR 2008 SC 1633 . 9. Para 25 of the above authority is quoted below : “25. To put it differently, it is not every suit claiming reliefs specified in Section 92 that can be brought under the Section; but only the suits which besides claiming any of the reliefs are brought by individuals as representatives of the public for vindication of public rights. 9. Para 25 of the above authority is quoted below : “25. To put it differently, it is not every suit claiming reliefs specified in Section 92 that can be brought under the Section; but only the suits which besides claiming any of the reliefs are brought by individuals as representatives of the public for vindication of public rights. As a decisive factor the Court has to go beyond the relief and have regard to the capacity in which the plaintiff has sued and the purpose for which the suit was brought. The Courts have to be careful to eliminate the possibility of a suit being laid against public trusts under Section 92 by persons whose activities were not for protection of the interests of the public trusts. In that view of the matter the High Court was certainly wrong in holding that the grant of leave was legal and proper. The impugned order of the High Court is set aside. The appeal is allowed but without any order as to costs.” 10. The main question involved in this revision is as to whether two organisations (societies) who are claiming management of trust properties can get the dispute resolved through suit under Section 92 C.P.C. or not? 11. Some of the prayers of the suit are not for particular direction to the defendants to act in a particular manner or removal of some of the members or office bearers of the executive body of the defendant. Prayers No. A and B squarely relate to inter-se dispute of management between plaintiff No. 1 and defendant No. 1. The Prayers No. A and B are quoted below: “A- That by permanent and other appropriate injunction the defendants, their agents, successors and servants be kindly restrained from interfering with the affairs and management of movable and immovable properties of the plaintiff mentioned or otherwise here in this plaint either directly or indirectly in any manner whatsoever. B- That by mandatory injunction the defendants, their successors, agents and officers be directed to hand over managements of all suit properties and funds of Methodist Episcopal Church in Southern Asia to plaintiff No. 1 to 5.” 12. The basic dispute is that which of the two bodies i.e. plaintiff No. 1 or defendant No. 1 is entitled to hold and manage the trust properties in dispute. The basic dispute is that which of the two bodies i.e. plaintiff No. 1 or defendant No. 1 is entitled to hold and manage the trust properties in dispute. Even if all the allegations of misappropriation levelled by the plaintiffs are found to be false still the claim of the plaintiff that it is the plaintiff No. 1 and not the defendant No. 1 which is entitled to manage the properties will survive. In my opinion, such prayer is not maintainable under Section 92 C.P.C. The right of management claimed in the plaint and the allegations of misappropriation levelled against the defendants in the plaint are quite separable. 13. In a suit under Section 92, C.P.C. removal and change of trustee may be prayed for, however plaintiff cannot claim that at the place of the entire management of the trust, the plaintiff must be put in control of the properties and working of the trust in question. 14. However the fact remains that serious allegations of mismanagement and misappropriation have been made in the plaint and there are four private plaintiffs in the suit, i.e. Plaintiffs No. 2 to 5, who are Christians, hence interested in preservation and proper management of church properties. Accordingly, I am of the opinion that the suit will be maintainable only if plaintiff No. 1 is deleted from the array of the parties and all the pleas in respect of right of plaintiff No. 1 to manage the property in dispute are deleted from the plaint and the Prayers No. A and B are deleted and substituted by appropriate prayer which may be made under Section 92, C.P.C. 15. The amendment application shall positively be filed within three weeks after serving a copy of the same upon learned counsel for defendants appearing before the Court below. Objections shall be filed by the defendants within two weeks from the receipt of amendment application. The learned District Judge, Mathura shall hear the matter on 15.5.2011 and pass appropriate order very expeditiously. Till the disposal of the amendment application interim order passed in this revision restraining the defendants from alienating any church property shall remain in operation. Along with the order on amendment application, order on temporary injunction application may also be passed by the learned District Judge. Absolutely no unnecessary adjournment shall be granted to the plaintiffs. Till the disposal of the amendment application interim order passed in this revision restraining the defendants from alienating any church property shall remain in operation. Along with the order on amendment application, order on temporary injunction application may also be passed by the learned District Judge. Absolutely no unnecessary adjournment shall be granted to the plaintiffs. If they seek more than one adjournment till the disposal of amendment/ temporary injunction application, then this revision shall be deemed to have been allowed. 16. Revision is accordingly disposed of. —————