1950 (2) TMI 16 - HC - Indian Laws

Court dismisses suit lacking Advocate-General's sanction under Section 92, Civil P. C. Trusteeship dispute falls under Section 92 requirements.

Abdul Razack Sahib and Ors. Versus A. Abdul Hamid Said and Ors.

The suit was dismissed by the court due to the lack of Advocate-General's sanction under Section 92, Civil P. C. The court determined that the nature of ... - Issues:1. Suit dismissal due to lack of Advocate-General's sanction under Section 92, Civil P. C.2. Interpretation of the nature of the suit and its alignment with Section 92, Civil P. C.3. Amendment of the decree related to pleader's fee calculation.Analysis:1. The lower Court dismissed the suit as it lacked the Advocate-General's sanction for falling under Section 92, Civil P. C. The suit concerned the 'Mecca Mathinya Imthath Fund,' seeking declarations, accounts, funds' forwarding, and receiver appointment. The Court emphasized that the suit's nature, as per the plaint, was within the scope of Section 92, as it involved trusteeship allegations and trust fund management. The Court clarified that even if the defendants were acknowledged as trustees but accused of breaching their duties, the suit still fell under Section 92, specifically Clauses (d) and (h).2. The appellant's counsel cited precedents to argue against the suit's classification under Section 92, Civil P. C. However, the Court found these references irrelevant to the present case. The Court differentiated the current scenario from past cases like Jamaluddin v. Mujtaba Hussain and Erelappa Mudaliar v. Balakrishniah. The Court highlighted that the suit's essence, focusing on trust matters and defendants' obligations, clearly aligned with Section 92 requirements. The Court rejected the appellant's reliance on Abdul Majid v. Aktar Nabi, emphasizing that the suit's nature and relief sought were indicative of a Section 92 application.3. Regarding the decree amendment for pleader's fee calculation, the Court addressed an application seeking modification based on Legal Practitioners' Fees Rules. The Court noted that the initial decree fixed the fee at Rs. 200, but an application requested a revision based on jurisdictional value. The Court ruled against the amendment, stating that Sections 151 and 152, Civil P. C., could not replace specific remedies like review or appeal. The Court set aside the amendment, restoring the decree to its original form. The appellants were directed to bear the costs of the appeal due to their substantial failure.This judgment underscores the importance of complying with procedural requirements under Section 92, Civil P. C., and the limitations on decree amendments without proper legal recourse.