LexMUNI KUMAR RAZDAN versus TRIMURTI CHARITABLE TRUST, GWALIOR & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
"'
[2009] 8 S.C.R. 1069
MUNI KUMAR RAZOAN
A
v.
TRIMURTI CHARITABLE TRUST, GWALIOR & ORS.
(Civil Appeal No. 3474 of 2009)
MAY 8, 2009
B
[DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND ASOK KUMAR
~
GANGULY, JJ.)
Madhya Pradesh Public Trust Act, 1951 - ss.5 and 8 -
Registration of respondent-trust - Challenged, vide writ c
petition and also vide civil suit uk 8 - Dispute raised as to
-
whether Registrar, Public Trusts has power to review the order
of registration - Single Judge of High Court disposed of the
writ petition without issuing notice to 'respondents -
,
Respondents filed Lett.~rs Patent Appeal - Division Bench
0
held that the Single Judge erred in deciding the matter without
issuing notice, but did not remand the matter to the Single
Judge and allowed the appeal holding that the question raised
could be decided in tf1e pending civil suit u/s. 8 - Propriety
of - Held: Proper - Natural justice requires that respondents
E
should have been heard in the matter -
Directions!
""'
observations passed by Division Bench cannot be faulted -
Dispute in the pending suit be adjudicated in the manner
directed by the Division Bench - Natural justice.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No.
F
3474 of 2009.
From the Judgment & Order dated 29.3.2004 of the High
Court of Madhya Pradesh Judicature Jabalpur bench at Gwalior
in LP.A. No. 156 of 2000.
G
:
Vivek Tankha, T.G. Narayanan Nair. Ratna Kaul and
Krishnan Nandakumar for the Appellants.
___..,
1069
H
1070
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 8 S.C.R.
A
Puneet Jain, S.K. Jain, Archna Tiwari, Pratibha Jain, B.S.
Banthia and Vikas Upadhayay for the Respondents.
}
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
B
DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. 1. Leave granted.
2. Challenge in this appeal is to the order passed by a
Division Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court, Gwalior
Bench, allowing the Letters Patent Appeal filed by the
~
respondents. The appeal filed by the present respondents was
c directed against the order of the leaned Single Judge in Writ
Petition 789 of 2000. Preliminary objection was raised by the
present appellant taking the stand that the appeal was not
maintainable as no orders have been passed. Learned counsel -
for the present ~ppellant submitted that the order passed by
D the learned Single Judge is not a judgment within the meaning
of clause 10 of the Letters Paten:.
3. The appellants in the Letters Patent Appeal submitted
that writ petition was decided without issuing notice to the
E
appellants before the writ court i.e. present respondents. The
petition was disposed of on the first day it was listed for
admission at motion hearing stage and after recording
presence of counsel for the State on advance notice.
4. It was submitted that the respondent-trust was not
-'·
F registered at the Public Trust under Section 5 of the Madhya
Pradesh Public Trust Act, 1951 (in short the 'Act'). It is provided
under Section 8 that any person aggrieved by registration of
the trust may file civil suit challenging registration. It was
submitted that after registration of the trust a writ petition was
G filed. Without issuing notice, learned Single Judge had issued
direction holding therein that the Registrar has power to review
the order of registration. It was also submitted that the writ
"I
::
petitioner had filed the civil suit under Section 8 challenging the
registration and in that event petition should have been
H dismissed. The Division Bench was of the view that the basic
r
..I
._
{ - •
MUNI KUMAR RAZDAN v. TRIMURTI CHARITABLE 1071
TRUST, GWALIOR & ORS. [DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.]
question was whether after registration of the trust, Registrar,
A
Public Trusts has jurisdiction to revive the order of registration.
After referring to various provisions it was held that the Single
Judge was not justified in deciding the matter without issuing
notice. The High Court, however, held that in view of the fact
that civil suit has been filed there is no need to remand the . B
matter to the Single Judge. The question raised can be
decided in the civil suit. Accordingly, the appeal was allowed.
5. In the present appeal, the stand was that the Division
Bench should not have decided the Letters Patent Appeal. It
C
was pointed out that the Division Bench should not have
interfered with the concurrent finding of the Single Judge
particularly, when the Letters Patent Appeal was not
maintainable.
6. It was also pointed outExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.