Delhi District Court
Sheotaj Singh vs . Kailash Satyarthi on 15 December, 2015
IN THE COURT OF Dr. KAMINI LAU: ADDL. DISTRICT
JUDGEII(CENTRAL): TIS HAZARI COURTS: DELHI
CS No. 83/2013
Sheotaj Singh Vs. Kailash Satyarthi
14.12.2015
ORDER (Oral):
(1) This is an application under Order XXV read with Section 151 CPC filed by the defendants no. 1 and 2 seeking directions to the plaintiffs to furnish security for payments of costs incurred and likely to be incurred by the defendants. It is pleaded that in their written statement the defendants have averred that the plaintiffs have no locus standi to file the present suit as they ceased to be the Trustees of Mukti Pratishthan on account of their political affiliation and other acts detrimental to the interest of the trust for which they were expelled from the Board of Trustees of the said trust as per the resolution of the Board of Trustees dated 4.3.1995. According to the defendants no. 1 and 2 it is the plaintiffs who have misappropriated the trust properties for their own benefits and use and they have debarred the defendant no.1 from entering into the registered office of the Trust at 7, Jantar Mantar, New Delhi since the year 1994. It is pleaded that Ms. Rana Parveen, Advocate who was appointed as Receiver visited the Head Office of the Trust in terms of the orders dated 11.4.1997 pursuant to which she filed her report dated Sheotaj Singh & Ors. Vs. Kailash Satyarthi & Anr. CS No. 83/13 Page No. 1 7.8.1988 and reported that the registered office of the Trust at 7, Jantar Mantar, New Delhi was in the exclusive control of the plaintiffs and Swami Agnivesh; that the plaintiffs were also in possession and were using the assets and properties of the Trust including its vehicles; that on her first visit to the registered officer of the Trust on 10.2.1998 she had taken into possession a large number of documents and also found some documents which she left for sealing them but when the Receiver made her second visit on 4.8.1998 she was physically prevented by the plaintiffs and Swami Agnivesh from discharging her duties and they not only manhandled her but also threatened to throw her out if she dared to touch anything in the office. According to the defendants no. 1 and 2, the plaintiffs and Swami Agnivesh also used unparliamentarily language and gave criminal threat to her, knowing fully well that she is an officer of this Court and consequently the Receiver also lodged a complaint with the concerned police station.
(2) It is pleaded that the suit filed by the plaintiffs is malafide and is an abuse of the process of law and the plaintiffs who had filed the present suit in the year 1997, have suddenly started aggressively prosecuting the proceedings after defendant no.1 has been awarded Noble Peace Prize. It is also pleaded that in order to defend the present proceedings the defendants are incurring huge costs and are likely to incur further cost in future. According to the defendants, in case any cost of the proceedings are awarded it will not be possible for the Sheotaj Singh & Ors. Vs. Kailash Satyarthi & Anr. CS No. 83/13 Page No. 2 defendants to recover the same from the plaintiffs as they do not possess any sufficient moveable property within India nor they own any assets from which the defendants may be able to realize the cost of proceedings. Therefore, the defendants are seeking directions to the plaintiffs to furnish security for payment of costs incurred and likely to be incurred by the defendants.
(3) In the reply to the application on behalf of the plaintiffs a preliminary objection has been raised with to the maintainability of the application which according to the plaintiffs have been moved only by Defendant Trustee No.1 (Kailash Satyarthi) and Defendant Trustee No.2 (Sumedha Kailash) who are related to each other being husband and wife whereas the Defendant Trustee No.3 (Vithal Rao) is not supporting their cause and has distanced himself from them. It is submitted that in order to mislead this Court, true facts have not been revealed by the defendants which are as under:
(a) That all cheques etc. have been signed and issued by the defendant trustees and all moneys have been withdrawn and paid solely by the Defendant Trustees.
(b) That the Mukti Pratishthan Trust is a part of the huge network of Trusts and Societies including SAACS, PACS, Save the Children Foundation, AVA, Balika Ashram, Global March against Child Servitude and many other organizations in which the defendant no.1 and 2 are involved Sheotaj Singh & Ors. Vs. Kailash Satyarthi & Anr. CS No. 83/13 Page No. 3 in different capacities along with one Ramesh Gupta Advocate.
(c) That the total turnover of all the above organizations is in multimillions and the defendants no.1 and 2 are in real, absolute and exclusive control of all their finances.
(d) That there exists an interlocking among all the above organizations as valuable interests, donations, properties etc. of Mukti Pratishthan have been diverted by the defendant Trustees to other organizations like AVA, PACS and SAACS etc. which remain under their exclusive control.
(e) That there has been a breach of trust by the applicants in as much as the prime property at 24C, MIG, Sheikh Sarai, New Delhi being under the use of Mukti Pratishthan as its Head Office for long time, was first converted by the defendant no.1 and 2 into their personal residence and then sold out the same to a third party.
(f) That the interim report of the Local Commissioner Ms. Rana Praveen Siddiqui exfacie shows manipulations and widespread bungling in account of Mukti Pratishthan.
(g) That the passport entries of the applicants i.e. defendant no.
1 (Kailash Satyarthi) and defendant no.2 (Sumedha Kailash) for the last 20 years confirm that they have used the finds Sheotaj Singh & Ors. Vs. Kailash Satyarthi & Anr. CS No. 83/13 Page No. 4 for charities to lead most luxuries life including foreign trips and lavish stays on foreign land.
(h) That huge donations from foreign lands are routed through dubious FCRA accounts to different Trusts, Societies etc. as stated above which are under full and exclusive control of applicants i.e. Kailash Satyarthi and his wife Sumedha Kailash.
(i) That the applicants have no source of income/ livelihood and do nothing to eke out a living, yet they have amassed huge and innumerable properties.
(4) On merits, it is submitted that the pleas of the applicants are false and concocted and neither the defendant trustees had any right to expel the plaintiff trustees, nor they could do so in accordance with rules and resolutions of the Trust nor the plaintiff trustees have ever been expelled. It is pleaded that leave under Section 92 CPC has been granted by the Ld. Predecessor Court to file and entertain the suit which was despite the objections of the applicants trustees which order has never been challenged and has become final. It is submitted that it is the defendants trustees i.e. Kailash Satyarthi and Sumedha Kailash who are close associates of Swami Agnivesh for a long time whereas the plaintiffs have nothing to do with Swami Agnivesh who is not an entity in relation to the trust. It is also submitted that the plaintiff trustees have Sheotaj Singh & Ors. Vs. Kailash Satyarthi & Anr. CS No. 83/13 Page No. 5 no control at all over 7, Jantar Mantar office of Mukti Prathisthan which is under the control of the defendant trustees from where the part of the record of the trust had been seized by the Local Commissioner/ Receiver. In so far as the allegations with regard to misbehaviour with the Receiver by Swami Agnivesh is concerned, it is submitted that the plaintiffs have no concern with Swami Agnivesh and the Receiver.
(5) In so far as the allegations with regard to plaintiffs suddenly started aggressively prosecuting the case as the defendant no.1 is awarded Nobel Prize is concerned, it is submitted that the present case is an old case filed much before the defendant no.1 was awarded Nobel prize and has now been expedited being an old matter. It is submitted that the conduct of the defendants shows that they did not wish an expeditious disposal of the suit and a resultant inquiry into the affairs of Mukti Pratisthan is indicative and speaks itself for the conduct of the defendant who, according to the plaintiff, has been making press statements which smacks of contempt. It is also submitted that the present litigation is in the form of complaint to the Ld. District Judge who is the custodian of Charities in the City with a prayer to look into the affairs of the Trust and it is inconceivable that the defendants should have any material interest in contesting against such an inquiry. It is pointed out that the plaintiffs are neither the recipients of moneys in the form of salaries or otherwise nor they have any personal monetary or material interest in the suit but are public spirited persons and in their Sheotaj Singh & Ors. Vs. Kailash Satyarthi & Anr. CS No. 83/13 Page No. 6 personal capacity have made a complaint to the Ld. District Judge, the Legal Patron of Public Trust against misfeasance inside the Trust and the defendants are purposefully aiming to burden the plaintiffs somehow to deter them from pursuing the suit and backtrack there from, which is only an attempt to subvert the suit and delay the proceedings. (6) It is argued by the Ld counsel for the applicants/ defendant no. 1 (Kailash Satyarthi) and defendant no.2 (Sumedha Kailash) that all the plaintiffs except the plaintiff no.2 Sh. Rajesh Tyagi are name lender and the suit in fact has been filed at the instance of Swami Agnivesh to discourage the defendants no.1 and 2. It is submitted that the defendant no.1 Kailash Satyarthi has earned great respect in the society for his work and has also been awarded Nobel Prize in recognition thereof and hence his reputation as also the reputation of the country cannot be put at stake, for which they should be asked to furnish the security in terms of Order 25 CPC. In order to substantiate his argument that it is Swami Agnivesh who is at the back of the present litigation, the Ld. Counsel for the applicants has placed his reliance on the interim report of the Local Commissioner/ Receiver wherein she has highlighted that on her visiting the premises of Mukti Pratishthan at 7, Jantar Mantar Road she had observed that the office was in possession of Swami Agnivesh and the gypsy was in use of Bandhua Mukti Morcha and she had been threatened by Swami Agnivesh and Sheotaj Singh with dire consequences and compelled to leave the premises when she was taking into possession the Sheotaj Singh & Ors. Vs. Kailash Satyarthi & Anr. CS No. 83/13 Page No. 7 relevant documents in terms of the directions issued by the Court, for which she had not only make a report to the Court but also to the local police.
(7) I may also observe that the Plaintiff No.3 Sh. Rajesh Tyagi who is an Advocate by profession and one of the Trustees of Mukti Pratishthan Trust has appeared in the court and personally argued the matter. He has vehemently argued that both Kailash Satyarthi and Swami Agnivesh are hands in gloves and are involved in to swindling of the accounts of the Trust and in order to avoid a detail inquiry have diverted and misappropriated the funds by creating huge network of societies and trusts along with one Sh. Ramesh Gupta Advocate in various capacities. He has placed his reliance on the provisions of Section 92 CPC and has submitted that the Ld. District Judge being the sole custodian of the trust properties has already been informed about the alleged breach of the expressed/ constructive conditions for which purpose the trust was created and leave of the Court has been granted, which order had never been challenged and has become final. (8) I have considered the rival contentions and also the relevant authorities placed on record by both the parties which are as under:
1. Muhammed Kassim Abdul Sathar Sait Vs. Hajee Bahiman Hajee Ismail reported in AIR (37) 1950 Travancore Chochin 100.
2. Dalip Singh Vs. State of UP reported in 2010 (2) SCC 144. Sheotaj Singh & Ors. Vs. Kailash Satyarthi & Anr. CS No. 83/13 Page No. 8
3. Subrata Roy Sahara Vs. Union of India reported in 2014 (8) SCC 470.
4. Ramrameshwari Devi Vs. Nirmala Devi reported in 2011 (8) SCC 249.
5. A. Shanmugam Vs. Ariya Kshatriya Rajakula Vamsathu Madalaya Nandhavana Paripalanai Sangam reported in 2012 (6) SCC 430 .
6. Padmavati Vs. Harijan Sewak Sangh reported in 154 (2008) DLT 411.
7. Vinod Seth Vs. Devinder Bajaj & Anr. reported in 2010 VII AD (SC) 325.
(9) At the very Outset I may observe that the present suit under Section 92 CPC is a representative suit and the existence of the Trust of Charitable Character i.e. Public Trust for Public Purposes is not disputed. The short dispute before before this Court is whether there has been a breach of trust/ terms and conditions and objectives of the Trust requiring directions from the Court for administration of the Trust. This aspect has already been primafacie looked into at appropriate stage while granting leave. The record reveals that the Ld. Predecessor of this Court had granted the leave to file such suit vide order dated 17.01.1997 after due satisfaction on the basis of grounds pleaded which order has never been assailed or challenged till date and has attained finality. It is settled Sheotaj Singh & Ors. Vs. Kailash Satyarthi & Anr. CS No. 83/13 Page No. 9 law that the maintainability of the suit under Section 92 CPC depends upon the allegations in the plaint and does not fall for decision with reference to the averments in the written statement and it is only after detailed evidence, if it is found that the ingredients of Section 92 CPC are not made out or that the breach of trust is not made out and the prayer for directions sought from the court are vague, that the suit must fail. At this stage, the order of the Ld. Predecessor Court granting leave to file the suit under Section 92 CPC having attained finality, it is not open to either of the parties to now challenge the said satisfaction in any manner after almost 18 years.
(10) Secondly, it is settled law that in suits brought by individuals as representatives of public for vindication of public rights i.e. a representative suit under Section 92 CPC, binds not only the parties named in the suit but all those who have common interest and are interested in the Trust. The Trust i.e. Mukti Pratishthan Trust is already a party before this court as Plaintiff No.5 and being a suit on behalf of public by vindication for public rights in respect of the Trust for public purposes, it is the duty of the Ld. District Judge being custodian of the Trust properties, to consider what is best in the interest of the public and technicalities of law will not be permitted to come in the way of the same.
(11) Thirdly, there are allegations and counter allegations which require due consideration at appropriate stage. While on the one hand Sheotaj Singh & Ors. Vs. Kailash Satyarthi & Anr. CS No. 83/13 Page No. 10 the applicants/ defendants have alleged that the plaintiffs were expelled from the Board of Trustees as per the Resolution dated 04.03.1995 and have no locus standi to file the present suit and further that the plaintiffs are puppets and name lenders to Swami Agnivesh who is in actual possession of the properties and assets of the Trust and enjoying the same for which security for costs is required, since the plaintiffs themselves do not possess any sufficient immovable property within India nor own any assets and this is a frivolous/ revengeful litigation. On the other hand there are allegations made by the plaintiffs that the defendants/ applicants have created a huge network of Trust, Societies and Organizations along with one Sh. Ramesh Gupta Advocate and have usurped and diverted the moneys of the plaintiff no.5 Trust to these organizations in which there are large scale financial bunglings while accepting foreign donations which are routed through bogus FCRA accounts. In my considered opinion the question of bonafidies of the plaintiffs and their capacity to represent the public and whether the said persons are really interested in the Trust and solvent and are not those with motive which are impure, is an aspect which was required to be looked into at the initial stage before the grant of leave and has been primafacie looked into by the Ld. Predecessor of this Court while granting this leave after his satisfaction and once this leave has been so granted after following due procedure which order has never been assailed and has attained finality, such issues cannot be reopened. Even Sheotaj Singh & Ors. Vs. Kailash Satyarthi & Anr. CS No. 83/13 Page No. 11 otherwise, these allegations and counter allegations are not relevant at this stage since many of the allegations like the plaintiffs being name lenders as also the allegations relating to creation of new organizations by the defendants/ applicants Kailash Satyarthi and Smt. Sumedha Kailash along with Sh. Ramesh Gupta Advocate, do not specifically form a part of the main pleadings of the parties and have been introduced subsequently in this application under Order 25 CPC and reply thereof. It was open to the parties to have sought leave of the court for incorporating these facts by way of amendments, which has not been done, thereby raising serious legal questions on the admissibility of these claims at this stage.
(12) Fourthly, in so far as the specific allegation made by the applicants regarding the plaintiffs being name lenders and Swami Agnivesh being at the root of the dispute are concerned, there is nothing on record to show that Swami Agnivesh was one of the trustees to Mukti Pratishthan (Plaintiff No.5) at any point of time. No doubt, there might have been serious dispute between Swami Agnivesh and the defendants at some point of time, however, a preliminary objection have been taken by the defendants a issue in this regard has already been framed but it is an admitted case of the defendants no.1 and 2 (Kailash Satyarthi and Sumedha Kailash) that in so far as the plaintiff no.3 Rajesh Tyagi Advocate is concerned, they are making no allegations of his being a name lender and these allegations are confined only to the other trustees Sheotaj Singh & Ors. Vs. Kailash Satyarthi & Anr. CS No. 83/13 Page No. 12 (i.e. Plaintiffs No. 1, 2 and 4, the Plaintiff No.5 being the Trust). It is also not disputed by the parties that as per the interim report of the Local Commissioner/ Receiver, when she visited the spot to take the possession of the account books and various documents, there was a stiff resistance by Swami Agnivesh and plaintiff no.1 Sheotaj Singh. I may observe that the fact that the premises in question from where the documents had to be seized is being used by Swami Agnivesh as the office of Bandhua Mukti Morcha which aspect is borne out from the record and not disputed by the applicants/ defendants and hence his presence at the spot is only natural. Whether Swami Agnivesh has any concern either direct or indirect with the various organizations of which defendant no.1 is a part including the Mukti Pratishthan Trust and its assets, is an issue which can only be decided only after detail evidence and trial and there can be no conclusions at this stage.
(13) Fifthly, the perusal of the various authorities so relied upon by the applicants/ defendants show that they deal with the concept of actual costs so awarded at the final stage. There can be no dispute with this proposition that at the final stage the Costs at Realistic levels are required to be imposed so that the false litigations and vexatious claims are discouraged, which costs may include expenses for time commitments i.e. number of hours consumed in hearing etc., expenses for experts and in case of loosing the litigation, damages to the other side not only incurred during the litigation but for the loss in terms of hours/ Sheotaj Singh & Ors. Vs. Kailash Satyarthi & Anr. CS No. 83/13 Page No. 13 time and reputation. A petitioner who is driven to the court by illegal acts of the defendants or is denied of rights to which he is entitled, if he succeeds is entitled to be reimbursed for his expenses in accordance with law and hence the concept of costs. Requiring the parties to pay for various expenses such as the legal fee and litigation of other party can serve as a penalty who uses legal system to harass others than to seek justice. I may observe that despite the desirability and repeated concerns of the Hon'ble Apex Court, we in India, have No Code for Compulsory Costs. [Ref: Subrata Roy Sahara Vs. Union of India reported in 2014 (8) SCC 470] and hence, in the absence of any Mandatory or Statutory Code, it is virtually impossible for the Courts to direct and enforce this advance deposit as an interim measure.
(14) Sixthly, as reflected from the various judgments upon which the applicants have placed their reliance, I am in full agreement with the applicants that in order to check frivolous litigations there should be pre deposit or advance deposit of litigation expenses but this, I may observe, can only be done where there is a statutory backing in certain category of cases by ensuring that the rights of poor litigants are not affected. The concept of PreDeposit of costs is yet to be introduced in a big way in the Indian Legal System. In fact, some of the world Jurisdiction have set litigation expenses on advance on hourly basis, for it is felt that it is necessary in Civil Cases, that the government should fix advance Sheotaj Singh & Ors. Vs. Kailash Satyarthi & Anr. CS No. 83/13 Page No. 14 litigation expenses since those who choose to come to the court and contest, must pay for it since the prosecution and defence of cases is time consuming and costly process. The need for predeposit of litigation expenses is based upon the principle that all those who have a grievance and want to be heard of it, need to pay, for instance, the CPC in Korea specifically provides for predeposit of costs which are refundable to the plaintiff minus the costs, if any, so awarded to the defendant and this amount to be so deposited has to be determined by the Court for which surety or negotiable instrument is demanded. This is done to encourage ADR (Alternative Dispute Redressal) vide Mediation, Arbitration, Conciliation Etc. I may observe that, of late, even in India, in many commercial agreements there is a predeposit clause which is so incorporated which binds the parties in case of any litigation and many statutory laws dealing with cases relating to Taxes, Insurance, Central Excise, Consumers etc. provide for predeposit of litigation expenses which is a mandatorily fixed predeposit. I am in full agreement with the proposition put forth before me that predeposits may act as a game changer for those venturing into adventurous litigations and hence need to be encouraged in certain category of cases but this can only be done by appropriate legislation. Mandatory pre fixed deposits do help in curbing frivolous litigations specially at the appellate stage and in fact, even in the PILs the rules of the High Courts and the Supreme Sheotaj Singh & Ors. Vs. Kailash Satyarthi & Anr. CS No. 83/13 Page No. 15 Court require a predeposit of a determined amount. No doubt, the anxiety to discourage false claims of an adventurous litigant from approaching the court is understandable but as observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Vinod Seth Vs. Devinder Bajaj & Anr. (Supra) no method which is wholly outside the law can be adopted only because the court feels it is just and equitable. Cardozo in his work 'The Nature of Judicial Process' has similarly observed that the Judge is not to innovate at pleasure and hence in order to discipline those who indulge into adventurous litigation, it is necessary to do so within four corners of law and what has not been specifically provided in the statute cannot be innovated by the courts by application of inherent powers.
(15) Seventhly, coming now to the aspect of Security of costs as contemplated under Order 25 CPC, I may observe that as per the said provisions the Court may on its own motion or an application of the parties, may require for a security of costs at any stage, though as per the settled law it should be done at the earliest possible opportunity but that in itself will not a sole ground for rejecting the application. In a case where the court feels that suit is not bonafide or that the plaintiff is not a real litigant but a puppet in the hands of others, the security for costs can be demanded (Ref.: Khajah Vs. Soloman reported in 14 (C) 533 and Rama Swamy Vs. Krishnammal reported in AIR 1935 Madras 230). Sheotaj Singh & Ors. Vs. Kailash Satyarthi & Anr. CS No. 83/13 Page No. 16 The short question which needs to determine while directing the deposition of security is whether the plaintiff has got a substantial interest in the suit or whether he is suing for another as a mere puppet. In a case where the security for costs has been demanded it has to be seen whether the plaintiff do not possess any sufficient immovable property or residing outside the jurisdiction of the court. Security deposit covers possible claims by the defendant for reimbursement of litigation costs if the defendant prevails. Apart from this rule, the court has inherent powers to order for security of costs in case of a puppet plaintiff. (Arumupan Vs. Sarupan reported in 1950 Madras 779). I may observe that the order for deposit of security has to be made in accordance with the establish principles. Any party to the suit who desires security must do so promptly otherwise the order may have the effect of stultify the suit and should not be passed. This provision cannot be used to curtail the right of legal pursuit of remedy. It is argued by the Ld. Counsel for the applicants/ defendants that the plaintiffs are not possessing sufficient means and till date have not even deposited the fee of the Receiver nor agreed to pay for the fee of the Expert i.e. Chartered Accountant showing that they are not possessing sufficient means for purposes of pursuing the litigation but I may observe that the suit being in representative capacity for public interest, the Ld. Predecessor Court has already taken care of this aspect and the Ld. District Judge being the custodian of the Public Trust, has in best Sheotaj Singh & Ors. Vs. Kailash Satyarthi & Anr. CS No. 83/13 Page No. 17 interest of the Public, already vide its order dated 11.4.1997 directed that the fee of the Receiver should be paid from the funds of the Trust i.e. Plaintiff No.5 against receipt. Further, when the Ld. Predecessor Court was informed by the Receiver regarding the obstruction by Plaintiff No.1 and Swami Agnivesh, then vide a detail order dated 07.01.1998, it empowered the Receiver to visit the property in question and in case of non cooperation, to take over the property of the Trust. This being the background, the question of requiring the Trustees to deposit the security in their individual capacity for the same does not arise. (16) Lastly, in so far as the argument raised by the applicants that the defendant no.1 is a Nobel Laureate and this litigation has gained momentum after he was awarded the Nobel, is concerned I may observe that this is an old case which is unfortunately pending in the courts for the last more than 18 years. It goes without saying that the defendant no. 1 has done the nation proud by his contributions but in a country governed by Rule of Law no person howsoever high, is legally an untouchable. For this Court credibility and reputation of the nation is non negotiable and equally important is the reputation of each person i.e. even if he is the smallest person on the street and none can be permitted to play with the same. Here is a famous saying "Be so however high you may be, the Law is above you, therefore everybody has to submit to the Majesty of Law". Having said that, I further hold that persons who occupy high public pedestal being in public gaze have an onerous Sheotaj Singh & Ors. Vs. Kailash Satyarthi & Anr. CS No. 83/13 Page No. 18 responsibility as role models for others and hence they cannot give an impression that they are beyond the law or the legal process. This boogie setup by Kailash Satyarthi and Sumedha Kailash of damage to their reputation as well as that of the country at international level in the light of Kailash Satyarthi being a Nobel Laureate equally turns on them and whenever persons of their credentials and reputation are publicly questioned, they need to come out clean and give answers to the various questions which have been raised in relation to their Trust rather than hiding behind the technicalities of law. In fact, the applicants/ defendants having nothing to hide, which I assume they do not, there should be no reason why the demand for inquiry raised by the plaintiffs should be scuttled. Asking the plaintiffs who are the other Trustees of the Trust (plaintiff No.5) to deposit security for costs, is too belated a plea raised by the applicants and this should have come much earlier i.e. at the first instance when the leave was granted on 17.01.1997 and the suit was filed and then on 11.04.1997 when the Ld. Predecessor Court had appointed the Receiver to do numerous acts including collection of details of the properties of the Trust, preparation of list of assets of the Trust, list of different organizations with which the trust was corresponding, details of the employees, list of educational institutions in India and abroad, details of pending case etc., which was never done and no justification is forthcoming as to why it has now been done after 18 years.
Sheotaj Singh & Ors. Vs. Kailash Satyarthi & Anr. CS No. 83/13 Page No. 19 (17) In view of my aforesaid discussion, I hereby hold that the object of Order 25 CPC is to protect the defendant in specific cases but not to stultify the bonafide suit of a poor plaintiff [Mangi Vs. Durga Bai reported in AIR 1947 (Nagpur) 124]. Rather, I may observe that a suit of representative character cannot be treated at par with an ordinary litigation. This is a litigation to protect public interest in a Public Trust and hence the plenary power of the court to reject any plea if found to be opposed public policy or detrimental to the interest of the Trust. In the name of demanding security for costs this Court cannot scuttle the rights of persons of legal pursuit of remedy and any such order of predeposit in case of a representative litigation if unsuccessful would tantamount to punishing an unsuccessful litigant for approaching the court is likely to be branded as Judicial Highhandedness or Judicial Vigilantism. In fact, in the present case the application filed by the applicants is totally vague and does not even specify the amount already spent by the defendants or the expenses likely to be incurred by them in future. The perusal of the judicial record confirms that the various orders and directions passed by the Ld. Predecessor Courts are self serving in this regard. The Ld. Predecessor Court vide order dated 11.4.1997 had specifically provided that the fee of the Receiver/ Local Commissioner has to be paid from the funds of the plaintiff no.5 Trust against receipt which order has never been challenged and has attained finality and holds good even today. Further, when the Ld. Predecessor Court Sheotaj Singh & Ors. Vs. Kailash Satyarthi & Anr. CS No. 83/13 Page No. 20 was informed by the Receiver regarding the obstructions, then vide a detailed order dated 07.01.1998 it empowered the Receiver to visit the property in question and in case of non cooperation, to take over the property of the Trust and for the said purpose the defendants i.e. the present applicants were directed to furnish the details of the properties of the Trust, which has not been done with till date. This order too has attained finality and holds good till date and in my view is sufficient to take care of the apprehensions so raised by the applicants. Once the court has directed the Receiver so appointed by it, to take over the properties of the trust, no further security in this regard is necessitated as of now, particularly when the applicants/ defendants themselves have failed to specifically bring on record the details of the assets of the plaintiff no.5 Trust. After the said details come on record, then if at any stage of the proceedings so felt necessary by the Court, it can always intervene appropriately in accordance with law.
(18) Hence in view of the above, the application filed by the defendants is accordingly Dismissed.
Announced in the open court (Dr. KAMINI LAU) Dated: 14.12.2015 ADJII(CENTRAL)/ DELHI Sheotaj Singh & Ors. Vs. Kailash Satyarthi & Anr. CS No. 83/13 Page No. 21 Sheotaj Singh Vs. Kailash Satyarthi CS No. 83/2013 14.12.2015 Present: Sh. V.P. Katiyar Advocate for the plaintiffs. Sh. Pradeep Diwan Senior Advocate with Ms. Anupam Dhingra Advocate for the defendant no.1 and 2.
Vide my separate detail order dictated and announced in the open court, but not yet typed, the application under Order 25 CPC filed by the defendants, is dismissed. On request of the Ld. Counsel for the defendants, a copy of the detail order be given dasti to him.
It is evident from the Proceeding Sheet dated 03.11.2011 the Ld. Predecessor of this Court on request of the Receiver and keeping in view the technicalities involved had also contemplated change of the Receiver/ Local Commissioner and both the parties were directed to sit together and consensually suggest the names of the professionally equipped private individuals or agency who can be appointed as Receiver, after which this aspect was never taken forward and in fact needs to be taken up. In this background, case be listed for consideration as regards change of Receiver/ appointment of government/ private professionally equipped person Sheotaj Singh & Ors. Vs. Kailash Satyarthi & Anr. CS No. 83/13 Page No. 22 as Receiver; placing on record the list of assets/ details of properties of the Plaintiff No.5 Trust; filing of original documents by the parties and information if production/ discovery of any document is required.
Be listed on 20.02.2016 (date is given on choice of counsels).
(Dr. Kamini Lau) ADJII(Central)/ 14.12.2015 Sheotaj Singh & Ors. Vs. Kailash Satyarthi & Anr. CS No. 83/13 Page No. 23