Supreme Court - Daily Orders
Prakhar Srivastava vs Shiv Kumar Jatia on 17 May, 2023
Bench: Krishna Murari, Sanjay Kumar
1
ITEM NO.25 COURT NO.11 SECTION XIV
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) Diary No(s). 19241/2023
(Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 24-11-2022
in FAOOS No. 126/2022 08-12-2022 in FAOOS No. 126/2022 10-04-2023
in FAOOS No. 126/2022 01-05-2023 in FAOOS No. 126/2022 passed by
the High Court Of Delhi At New Delhi)
PRAKHAR SRIVASTAVA Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
SHIV KUMAR JATIA & ORS. Respondent(s)
( IA No.97959/2023-CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING and IA
No.97960/2023-EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT
and IA No.97955/2023-PERMISSION TO FILE PETITION (SLP/TP/WP/..) )
Date : 17-05-2023 This petition was called on for hearing today.
CORAM :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KRISHNA MURARI
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR
For Petitioner(s) Mr. Santosh Paul, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Vedant Singh, AOR
Mr. Maithreya Shetty, Adv.
For Respondent(s)
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
O R D E R
Permission to file the special leave petition is granted.
2. Delay condoned.
3. By means of the present special leave petition, the petitioner herein who was not a party to the proceedings either in Signature Not Verified the suit or in the appeal pending before the High Court of Delhi at Digitally signed by GEETA AHUJA Date: 2023.05.18 15:12:54 IST Reason: New Delhi, assails an order dated 24.11.2022 passed in FAO(OS) 126 of 2022 along with the orders dated 08.12.2022, 10.04.2023 and 2 01.05.2023. In a nutshell, there was an inter-se dispute between the trustees of the Public Charitable Trust by the name of ‘Ram Pyari Devi Charitable Trust’ which operated in the sphere of Education and is running a school by the name of ‘Delhi Public School, New Town.
4. Pleadings further go to show that the said trust has co- trustees who are closely related to each other and on account of the inter-se dispute, the trustees filed the suit under Section 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short ‘CPC’) against each other which is pending at a nascent stage before the Trial Court. Against some interregnum order passed by the Trial Court, respondent no. 1 filed the captioned FAO(OS) 126 of 2022 before the Division Bench.
5. With the consent of the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties, the Division Bench of the High Court vide impugned order dated 24.11.2022 referred the matter for mediation and appointed a former Judge of this Court as mediator. Subsequent orders, under challenge in this appeal, are consequential orders passed by the Division Bench extending the time for completing the mediation.
6. Challenge to the aforesaid orders has been made basically on the ground that the dispute in respect of a Public Charitable Trust pending in a suit filed under Section 92 of CPC cannot be referred to be settled through the process of mediation between the parties to the said suit inasmuch as a notice is required to be issued to the public in rem and such a dispute cannot be adjudicated on the basis of mediation and agreement between the parties to the suit 3 when the dispute involves the property of a public charitable trust.
7. Referring to the provisions of Order 23 Rule 3B of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, it is submitted that no mediation in such a suit could have been possible. It is further submitted that provisions of Section 92 CPC clearly indicate that the said provision was brought on the statue book to prevent collusive settlements in relation to public trusts, inter se such persons whose personal interests have prejudiced the Public Charitable objectives of the trust itself, at the cost of the ultimate public beneficiaries of the trust.
8. Before we enter into the questions raised before us, the locus of the petitioner to challenge the legality and validity of such an order stares at the face. As per the pleadings, the petitioner is an advocate by profession and espouses the cause of providing right to education to the children all over the country.
9. Even though there may be force in the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner, but that alone would not be sufficient to give a locus to the petitioner to challenge the impugned order before this Court by means of this Special Leave Petition, at this stage, without first approaching the High Court itself.
10. In our considered opinion, the petitioner has no locus to maintain this Special Leave Petition and, thus, the same is not liable to be entertained at his behest and, accordingly,is liable to be dismissed.
4
11. We, however, make it clear that our observations made in this regard may not be misinterpreted to mean that the petitioner has a right to intervene in the suit proceedings or the appeal pending before the Division Bench. In case, the petitioner chooses to make any intervention in the matter, it shall be open for the Court concerned, to consider and decide the same on its own merits, in accordance with law, without being influenced by the above observations which have simply been made while testing the locus of the petitioner to maintain the present Special Leave Petition.
12. Even though, the present SLP is liable to be dismissed on the ground of the locus of the petitioner yet we cannot shut our eyes to the glaring facts as are culled out from the pleadings in this petition. The dispute involves a Public Charitable Trust and trustees have instituted suits against each other making serious allegations of malpractices and financial irregularities against each other. Some of the allegations, if proved, may also lead to criminal proceedings against the trustees.
13. We have also taken note of the fact that a School by the name of Delhi Public School is established and being run on the land which was given on lease to the Trust. According to the pleadings, there are more than 5,000 students studying in the said school. In the circumstances, we deem it appropriate to request the High Court to appoint a suitable person as an administrator to manage the affairs of the public trust in question, till the final adjudication of the suit.
14. We have also expressed our reservations about the legality and validity of the impugned order passed by the High Court whereby the 5 dispute pending in a suit under Section 92 of CPC have been referred to be settled through the process of mediation between the trustees.
15. However, since, we have declined to interfere in the matter at the behest of the petitioner whom we find has no locus at this stage, we are not saying anything further in the matter and we leave it to the discretion of the High Court to consider and pass appropriate orders with regard to referring the parties to the process of mediation to explore the possibility of settlement of dispute in respect of a public Charitable Trust, in accordance with law.
16. With the aforesaid observations, the Special Leave Petitions, stands dismissed. Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of.
(SONIA GULATI) (BEENA JOLLY) SENIOR PERSONAL ASSISTANT COURT MASTER (NSH)