Section 92(1)(h) CPC Widely Worded, Empowers Courts To Grant Further Or Other Relief Including Probing Alienation Of Trust Property: Himachal Pradesh High Court
Safiya Malik
The High Court of Himachal Pradesh Division Bench of Chief Justice G.S. Sandhawalia and Justice Jiya Lal Bhardwaj dismissed an appeal and upheld the refusal to reject a plaint, permitting a suit concerning administration of a public temple trust and alleged alienation of trust land to proceed. The dispute centres on claims by worshippers that temple property was transferred through revenue entries and a sale deed to private purchasers, and that reliefs are required for proper trust management, including accounts, a management scheme, and consequential directions. While declining to terminate the suit at the threshold, the Bench noted that Section 92(1)(h) of the Code of Civil Procedure is “very widely worded”, empowering courts to grant “such further or other relief” as the nature of the case may require, including relief linked to examining alienation of trust property.
The dispute arose from a civil suit filed under Section 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure seeking a scheme for the management of Shri Jathia Devi Temple and its landed properties. The plaintiffs, worshippers of the temple, alleged mismanagement and breach of trust by the appointed Pujari and his successors, who were defendants No. 1 to 22. They sought removal of these defendants from trusteeship, declaration of revenue entries in their favour as null and void, and cancellation of a sale deed executed in 1986 transferring temple land to defendants No. 23 and 24.
Defendants No. 23 and 24 contested the suit, arguing that no trust existed, that they were not trustees, and that the suit was barred by limitation since the sale deed was executed decades earlier. They claimed lawful possession supported by mutation entries and physical development of the land. The plaintiffs countered that the temple was established for public religious purposes, revenue remission was granted in favour of the deity, and the sale deed was fraudulent. The application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC filed by defendants No. 23 and 24 sought rejection of the plaint, which was dismissed by the Single Judge, leading to the present appeal before the Division Bench.
The Bench recorded: “only the vexatious litigation had to be put to an end, while exercising power under Order VII Rule 11 of ‘CPC’ which is a drastic one, and has to be strictly adhered to.” It stated: “Thus, the test was to see that the full averment in the plaints have to be examined…” It noted that the issue raised was “a mixed question of fact and law.”
On the pleadings concerning the trust property, the Court observed: “The allegation was that the entries were changed in the revenue record clandestinely and the property was transferred.” It further stated: “it is not disputed that fraud goes to the root of the matter.” In that context, it recorded: “the fact we are dealing with the case of the Trust property, the specific averments have to be seen whether the alienation was bad and we cannot say that there is no cause of action.”
On the stage at which limitation and allied objections can be decided for the purpose of rejection of plaint, the Bench recorded: “both being mixed questions of law and facts, cannot as such be decided under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC.”
On the scope of relief under Section 92 CPC, the Court stated: “However, Section 92 sub-Clause (1) (h) of CPC is very widely worded which further provides that grant of such further or other relief as the nature of the case may require, can be done by the Principal Civil Court or original jurisdiction or in any other Court empowered in that behalf by the State Government.”
It further recorded: “It is thus, apparently clear from sub-Section (1) (h) of Section 92 CPC, the power of the Courts would depend upon as to what relief has to be granted at the time of the final decision and whether it is to be exercised qua the alienation which was done in favour of Mohinder Lal and therefore, we are of the considered opinion that it would be a question which has to be decided after evidence is led and at this stage even otherwise cannot be done.” The Bench added: “This Court not being denuded of any such jurisdiction should not adjudicate as such on merits in the dispute in question at this stage.”
The Bench observed: “Resultantly, in sum and substance, it has been held that the plaint has to be rejected as a whole or not at all and it was jurisdictional error to partly reject the plaint and go on the part of the another defendants.”
The Court directed: “Resultantly, the Division Bench order was set aside and order of the learned Single Judge rejecting the application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC was upheld. Resultantly, the suit as a whole must proceed, if the plaint is survived against the certain defendants.”
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Petitioners: Mr. Neeraj Gupta, Senior Advocate with Mr. Ajeet Pal Singh Jaswal Advocate
For the Respondents: Mr. R.K. Bawa, Senior Advocate with Mr. Abhinav Thakur, Advocate
Case Title: Himinder Lal and others Vs. Madan Lal and others
Neutral Citation: 2025:HHC:40682
Case Number: FAO (OS) No. 01 of 2024
Bench: Chief Justice G.S. Sandhawalia, Justice Jiya Lal Bhardwaj
