O R D E R
The civil revision petition is at the instance of petitioners /plaintiffs in I.A. No. 427 of 2020 in Unnumbered O.S. Of 2020. Unnumbered O.S. of 2020 was presented under Section 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The civil revision petitioners want a scheme to be framed for Sri Aurobindo Ashram Trust (hereinafter to be referred to as SAAT).
2. The plaintiffs claim that they are devotees and followers of Sri Aurobindo and the Holy Mother. They claim that they have been practising the principles of yoga that have been evolved by the aforesaid two persons. They claim that they are practitioners of the art that has been formulated by Sri Aurobindo and the Mother for several decades.
3. The 1st defendant trust was created by the Mother on 31.03.1964. She appointed herself as the permanent president of the trust. She passed away on 17.11.1973. Pleading that the trust has not been governed properly by the present trustees, the plaintiffs filed a suit for the aforesaid reliefs. Being a scheme suit, an application was filed seeking leave of the Court. The said
2/6
application was received in I.A. No. 427 of 2020.
4. Notice was issued to the respondents / defendants. They also entered appearance and filed a detailed counter to the same. Thereafter, the learned Judge proceeded to allow the application filed for leave. During the course of his discussion on the application, he made certain observations regarding Clause 9 of the trust deed authored by the Mother. The plaintiffs have filed this revision to expunge those paragraphs from the said order.
5. Heard Ms. Hemlata Prasad, Party-in-Person in support of the revision.
6. I have gone through the records and carefully perused the order impugned.
7. In order for a person to be aggrieved for presenting a revision, the order must have gone against the party preferring the revision. When a party is successful in application, the said party cannot be said to be a person aggrieved to approach the higher forums of law.
3/6
8. A perusal of the order in I.A. No. 427 of 2020 dated 13.06.2024, shows that the plaintiffs / civil revision petitioners were successful in convincing the learned Principal District Judge to grant leave under section
92. I fail to understand how, when the plaintiffs are successful before the Courts below, they are entitled to maintain a revision.
9. At this stage, Ms. Hemlata Prasad submits that the observations made in paragraph Nos. 15, 21 and 22 on the interpretation of Clause 9 of the trust deed created by the Mother would affect her at the time of final disposal. The learned Judge has given reasons in those paragraphs for granting leave to the petitioners. In case those paragraphs are set aside, the petitioner herself could be aggrieved because it might end in the dismissal of her leave application.
10. Be that as it may, suffice it to observe that the remarks made by the learned Judge in paragraph Nos. 15, 21 and 22 are only for the purpose of disposal of I.A. No. 427 of 2020. Being an administrative order in terms of Section 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure, it would not be binding on the learned Judge who finally disposes of the suit. An observation made in the Interlocutory proceedings obviously does not bind the Court at the time of final disposal. Hence, the fear of Ms. Hemlata Prasad is unfounded.
4/6
11. With the above observations, the civil revision petition stands dismissed. No costs.
15.10.2024
Index : Yes / No Speaking order : Yes / No NCC : Yes / No
pal
To
The Principal District Judge at Puducherry.
5/6
V.LAKSHMINARAYANAN, J. ,
pal
C.R.P. No. 4123 of 2024
15.10.2024
6/6