Rival Trustees’ Fight For Charitable Trust Control Was Not A Public-Interest Suit: Orissa HC Dismisses Section 92 Case

Vigyan Bharati Charitable Trust, a public charitable trust operating educational and medical institutions, became the subject of a dispute between rival groups of trustees over its management, competing resolutions and amendments to its Trust Deed.

The plaintiffs initially brought suits seeking declaratory and injunctive relief; Section 92 CPC was invoked after the petitioner sought rejection of the plaint.

Following an earlier order setting aside leave granted by a Civil Judge, the plaintiffs filed C.S. No. 19 of 2025 before the District Judge, who granted leave under Section 92 on 18 December 2025.

The petitioner’s application to revoke that leave was dismissed on 24 December 2025, prompting the present petitions under Article 227.

Section 92(1) CPC applies where a public charitable or religious trust is alleged to have suffered a breach of trust, or judicial directions are necessary for its administration, and one or more reliefs specified in clauses (a)–(h) are sought; the suit must also be representative in character and brought in the public interest, rather than to vindicate individual rights.

The plaint must be read as a whole to determine its dominant purpose and substance; the inclusion of Section 92 reliefs or allegations of mismanagement is not, by itself, sufficient.

Vidyodaya Trust v. Mohan Prasad R. and Sugra Bibi v. Hazi Kummu Mia establish that Section 92 does not apply where the suit’s primary object is the vindication of private or personal rights.

Under R.M. Narayana Chettiar v. N. Lakshmanan Chettiar, a defendant may seek revocation of leave, which must be considered on its merits.

Article 227 permits supervisory correction where the subordinate court fails to apply the governing legal test or commits an error going to the jurisdiction of the proceeding, but is not an appellate jurisdiction over mere errors of fact or law.

The Trust’s public charitable character satisfied the first Section 92 requirement, but the plaint’s pleaded cause of action centred on rival resolutions, competing Trust Deeds, removal or disqualification from office, and the parties’ competing claims to control the Trust.

Although the plaint alleged financial irregularities and mismanagement and sought reliefs resembling those under Section 92, the Court found those allegations intertwined with the plaintiffs’ claim that their resolutions were valid and the rival group’s authority invalid; they did not establish an independent representative action to protect the beneficiaries or charitable objects.

The District Judge’s finding that the dispute concerned administration and accounts did not address the decisive question of the suit’s representative character or dominant purpose.

The failure to undertake that analysis warranted supervisory correction under Article 227.

It allowed CMP No. 236 of 2026, set aside the order refusing revocation, revoked the leave granted on 18 December 2025, and dismissed C.S. No. 19 of 2025 as not maintainable under Section 92.

The plaintiffs were not precluded from pursuing available remedies for their individual claims, and could claim the benefit of Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963, if available in law; the Court expressed no opinion on the merits of the competing claims or allegations.

The connected CMPs were allowed on the same terms, with no order as to costs.