Judgment 1. This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed to get set aside the order dated 23.07.2012 passed in I.A.No.124 of 2011 in I.A.No.58 of 2011 in O.S.No.16 of 2011 by the learned Principal District Judge, Thanjavur. 2. A re'sume' of facts absolutely necessary for the disposal of this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal, would run thus: The appellants namely, the plaintiffs filed the suit in O.S.No.16 of 2011, seeking the following reliefs: "(i) Setting a scheme for SRI KRISHNA VILAS BAJANAI KOODAM situated in THIRUMALAINAMBI STREET KUMBAKONAM, (ii) Removing all the trustees from the trusteeship for illegally selling the properties owned by the trust SRI KRISHNAVILAS BAJANAI KOODAM, (iii) Directing the trustees who have ceased to be the trustee to deliver possession of all the properties owned by the trust SRIKRISHNA VILAS BAJANAI KOODAM to the new trustee appointed by the court, (iv) Directing accounts and inquiries, (v) Setting aside the sale deed dated 29.07.2002 executed by T.N.RAJAM in favour of the 12th defendant as abinitio void, (vi) Setting aside the sale deed dated 29.07.2002 executed by T.R.LAKSHMANAN in favour of the 12th defendant as abinitio void, (vii) Setting aside the sale deed dated 30.07.2002 executed by T.N.JAYACHANDRAN in favour of the 12th defendant as abinitio void, (viii) Setting aside the sale deed dated 31.07.2002 executed by T.N.B.JANAKIAMMAL, T.N.B.NARAYANAN and T.N.B.SRIDHAR in favour of the 12th defendant as abinitio void, (ix) Setting aside the sale deed dated 19.08.2002 executed by T.R.RAMAIYAN, T.R.EGYAMOORTHY AND T.R.GOVINDARAJAN in favour of the 12th defendant as abinitio void, (x) Directing the 12th defendant to handover the vacant possession of the property comprised in survey number 1339 new survey number 1339/2 situated at the western bank of MAHAMAGAM KULAM in KUMBAKONAM after removing the superstructure morefully described in the schedule hereunder, (xi) Pass an order of permanent injunction restraining the 12th defendant from putting up further construction in the property comprised in survey number 1339 new survey number 1339/2 situated at the western bank of MAHAMAGAM KULAM in KUMBAKONAM, (xii) Granting such further or other relief as the nature as as the case may require. (extracted as such) The same plaintiffs filed I.A.No.58 of 2011 seeking the following relief: "Therefore, it is prayed that this Honourable court may be pleased to grant leave to file the suit under section 92 of the code of civil procedure and thus render justice." (extracted as such) Whereupon, leave was granted in favour of the plaintiffs to file such a suit under Section 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure in O.S.No.16 of 2011. Subsequently, the defendants therein filed I.A.No.124 of 2011 to get the leave cancelled. Whereupon, after hearing both sides, the lower Court passed the order to the effect that the Trust being a private Trust and not a public Trust, could file a suit invoking Section 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure and not by invoking Section 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure and with that observation, allowed that I.A.No.124 of 2011 and dismissed the suit itself. 3. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the same, originally, the Civil Revision Petition was filed and subsequently, it was converted into this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal with the permission of this Court. 4. Heard both sides. 5. The learned Counsel for the appellants/plaintiffs would submit that even though the lower Court felt that Section 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure cannot be invoked and Section 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure only could be invoked and a separate suit could be filed, yet the lower Court was not justified in simply dismissing the suit in O.S.No.16 of 2011 and the lower Court should have treated the suit as the one filed under Section 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure de hors, the order passed in I.A.No.58 of 2011, cancelling the leave granted under Section 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure. 6. Whereas the learned Counsel for the respondents/ defendants 7 and 12 would pyramid his arguments thus: In the earlier proceedings, it has been held that the Trust is not a public Trust, but a private Trust. In such a case, the question of the plaintiffs invoking Section 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure and filing the suit was a well-neigh impossibility. In such a case, the question of the plaintiffs invoking Section 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure and filing the suit was a well-neigh impossibility. Even then, the plaintiffs did choose to file the said suit invoking Section 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure and it was appropriately and appositely, correctly and legally quashed by the lower Court warranting no interference in this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal. 7. The point for consideration is as to whether the lower Court after giving a finding that Section 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure, could not be invoked, but only Section 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure could be invoked, was justified in dismissing the suit in O.S.No.16 of 2011 instead of treating it as the one filed under Section 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure? The Point: 8. In view of the previous decisions of this Court, viz., the judgment of the learned Single Judge of this Court dated 20.11.2000 passed in A.S.No.734 of 1992, C.R.P.No.1905 of 1992, S.A.No.1302 of 1992 and S.A.No.912 of 1996 and the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court dated 16.10.2006 passed in L.P.A.No.111 of 2002 and the arguments submitted before me, I would like to observe that it has become a settled factual position so far the said Trust is concerned that it is a private Trust. At this juncture, I would like to refer to Section 1 of the Indian Trusts Act, 1882, which is extracted hereunder for ready reference: "1. Short title, commencement.- This Act may be called the Indian Trusts Act, 1882, and it shall come into force on the first day of March, 1882. Local extent.- It extends to the whole of India except the State of Jammu and Kashmir and the Andaman and Nicobar Islands; but the Central Government may, from time to time, by notification in the Official Gazette, extend it to the Andaman and Nicobar Islands or to any part of thereof. Local extent.- It extends to the whole of India except the State of Jammu and Kashmir and the Andaman and Nicobar Islands; but the Central Government may, from time to time, by notification in the Official Gazette, extend it to the Andaman and Nicobar Islands or to any part of thereof. Savings.- But nothing herein contained affects the rules of Mohammedan law as to waqf, or the mutual relations of the members of an undivided family as determined by any customary or personal law, or applies to public or private religious or charitable endowments, or to trusts to distribute prizes taken in war among the captors; and nothing in the Second Chapter of this Act applies to trusts created before the said day." 9. A mere running of the eye over the aforesaid provision, in particular, the 'Savings', would reveal that the Indian Trusts Act, 1882, is not applicable to the private religious or charitable endowments. Here, it is glaringly clear that the said Trust is not for any private purpose, but for religious purpose, so to say, religiosity is found embedded in the creation of Trust. In such a case, it cannot be termed as the one within the ambit of the provisions of the Indian Trusts Act, 1882. If at all, that private Trust is for private purpose, then the question of invoking the Indian Trusts Act, 1882, would arise. Hence, it is clear that the Indian Trusts Act, 1882, is not applicable and in such a case, as correctly pointed out by the lower Court invoking Section 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure by filing a civil suit for enforcement of certain rights relating to such private Trust would be maintainable by virtue of Section 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure. 10. Now, the short point to be decided is as to whether the lower Court on giving such a finding, was not justified in dismissing the original suit in O.S.No.16 of 2011 itself. 11. Not to put too fine a point on it, simply because the order granting leave under the application filed under Section 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure, was revoked, that it does not mean that the plaintiffs should be driven to the extent of filing a fresh civil suit invoking Section 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure. 11. Not to put too fine a point on it, simply because the order granting leave under the application filed under Section 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure, was revoked, that it does not mean that the plaintiffs should be driven to the extent of filing a fresh civil suit invoking Section 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure. A fortiori, the very same Court is having pecuniary as well as territorial jurisdiction to entertain the same suit as an ordinary civil suit. In such a case, the finding given for filing a fresh suit before the same Court under Section 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure, is nothing but a surplusage, which is not contemplated under law. 12. I recall and recollect the legal maxim "Boni judicis est lites dirimere, ne lis ex lite oritur, et interest reipublicae ut sint fines litium." [It is the role of a good judge to dispose of litigations so that one suit should not grow from another.] 13. Accordingly, if viewed, the lower Court should not have dismissed the suit, but it should have given a finding to proceed with the suit under Section 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure as an ordinary original civil suit. 14. As such, I would like to mandate the lower Court to take up the O.S.No.16 of 2011 and process it as an ordinary original civil suit filed under Section 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure. 15. Whereupon the learned Counsel for the respondents/ defendants 7 and 12 would implore and entreat that they might be given liberty to raise all pleas including maintainability of the suit before Court concerned. It is quite obvious and axiomatic that such a right is available with the respondents/defendants 7 and 12 and they are at liberty to raise all legal and factual pleas before the lower Court and also file necessary written statement. 16. On balance, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is disposed of. No costs.