# Smt. Reena Gupta v. Thakur Hanuman Ji Maharaj Private Trust Virajman Temple

- **Citation:** (2026) 3 ILRA 751
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2026-03-11
- **Case number:** Matters Under Article 227 No. 3024 of 2026
- **Bench:** Dr. Yogendra Kumar Srivastava
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/smt-reena-gupta-v-thakur-hanuman-ji-maharaj-private-trust-virajman-temple-54799
- **Pages:** 8

## Text

3 All. Smt. Reena Gupta Vs. Thakur Hanuman Ji Maharaj Private Trust Virajman Temple
751
of powers under Section 24(5) C.P.C., is fully competent to transfer such a suit to a court
having jurisdiction to try the same, and such transfer constitutes a valid mode of curing the defect
of jurisdiction. The provisions of Order VII Rule 10 and Rule 10A C.P.C. are procedural in nature
and cannot be construed as limiting or overriding the plenary power of transfer vested under
Section 24 C.P.C. Where the defect of jurisdiction stands effectively remedied by a lawful order of
transfer and no prejudice is caused to any party, insistence upon return of the plaint would amount
to elevating form over substance. The absence of prior notice under Section 24, by itself, does not
vitiate the order of transfer in the absence of demonstrable prejudice.

26. The petition lacks merit and is accordingly dismissed.
----------
(2026) 3 ILRA 751
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 11.03.2026

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE DR. YOGENDRA KUMAR SRIVASTAVA, J.

Matters Under Article 227 No. 3024 of 2026

Smt. Reena Gupta ...Petitioner
Versus
Thakur Hanuman Ji Maharaj Private Trust Virajman Temple ...Respondent

Issue for Consideration
Whether the trial court was justified in undertaking a suo motu enquiry regarding the authority of the person
instituting the suit on behalf of the trust at the stage of institution of the suit and in dismissing the case at the
admission stage without registering it as a Small Causes Court suit and without issuing notice to the
defendant.

Head Notes
The Constitution of India, 1950-Article 227-The trial court travelled far beyond the limited
scrutiny permissible at the stage of institution of the suit. Instead of registering the plaint and
issuing notice to the defendant, the trial court embarked upon an enquiry into the internal
management of the trust and recorded findings regarding the authority of the Managing Trustee.
Such an exercise necessarily involved examination of documents and evaluation of evidence,
which could properly arise only during the course of trial- The procedural discipline governing
civil adjudication recognizes the 'institution of a suit' and the 'trial of a suit' as two distinct
stages of the proceedings, each governed by its own limited scope and procedural framework. At
the stage of institution, the court is required to undertake only a prima facie scrutiny of the
plaint for the purpose of determining whether the pleadings disclose a cause of action and
whether any legal impediment to the entertainment of the suit is apparent on the face of the
record. The stage of institution is not intended to become a forum for adjudication of contested
questions of fact. The determination of such questions necessarily belongs to the stage of trial,
where pleadings are complete and both parties are afforded an opportunity to produce evidence
in support of their respective stands.
752 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Held- The revisional court rightly interfered with the order passed by the trial court and merely restored the
proceedings to the stage at which they ought to have proceeded in accordance with law, namely registration
of the suit and issuance of notice to the defendant so that the dispute may be adjudicated upon after
completion of pleadings and consideration of evidence. Petition dismissed. (E-15)

Case Law Cited

List of Acts
The Constitution of India, 1950

List of Keywords
Trial court travelled beyond the limited scrutiny permissible at the stage of institution of the suit; Exercise
necessarily involved examination of documents and evaluation of evidence, which could properly arise only
during the course of trial; Stage of institution is not intended to become a forum for adjudication of contested
questions of fact

Case Arising From
Order dated 28.01.2026 passed by the Court of the Additional District Judge, Court No. 5, Hathras in SCC
Revision No. 31 of 2020 (Thakur Hanuman Ji Maharaj Private Trust vs. Smt. Reena Gupta), whereby the
revisional court has allowed the revision, set aside the order dated 27.08.2020 passed by the Civil Judge
(Senior Division)/Judge Small Causes, Sadabad, District Hathras in Misc. Case No. 01 of 2020, and directed
the trial court to register the proposed Small Causes Court suit and proceed with the matter after issuing
notice to the opposite party.

Appearances for Parties
Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Ashish Goyal
Counsel for Respondent(s) :

(Delivered by Hon'ble Dr. Yogendra Kumar Srivastava, J.)

Heard Sri Prashant Pandey, holding brief of Sri Ashish Goyal, learned counsel for the
petitioner.

2. The present petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, laying
challenge to the legality and validity of the order dated 28.01.2026 passed by the Court of the
Additional District Judge, Court No. 5, Hathras in SCC Revision No. 31 of 2020 (Thakur Hanuman
Ji Maharaj Private Trust vs. Smt. Reena Gupta), whereby the revisional court has allowed the
revision, set aside the order dated 27.08.2020 passed by the Civil Judge (Senior Division)/Judge
Small Causes, Sadabad, District Hathras in Misc. Case No. 01 of 2020, and directed the trial court
to register the proposed Small Causes Court suit and proceed with the matter after issuing notice to
the opposite party.

3. The case originates from a plaint filed on 27.05.2020 by Devkinandan Agrawal, adopted
son of Shri Damodardas, claiming to be the Managing Trustee of Thakur Hanuman Ji Maharaj
Private Trust Virajman Temple situated at Dharamshala Motiram Ji, Village Sherpur, Vinoba
Nagar, Salempur Road, Tehsil Sadabad, District Hathras. In the plaint it was alleged that the said
trust is the owner and landlord of a shop situated at Sherpur, Salempur Road, Vinoba Nagar,
Sadabad, District Hathras and that the defendant, Smt. Reena Gupta, is a tenant in the said premises
3 All. Smt. Reena Gupta Vs. Thakur Hanuman Ji Maharaj Private Trust Virajman Temple
753
at a monthly rent of Rs.1500/- inclusive of 10% water tax and 10% house tax with effect from
16.02.2017.

4. It was further pleaded that an agreement dated 15.01.2017 had been entered between the
parties under which the rent was to be enhanced by 10% after every three years and in case of
default in payment of rent for four months the tenant would be liable to pay interest at the rate of
Rs.2 per hundred. The plaintiff asserted that the rent from 16.11.2019 onwards had fallen due and
that despite repeated demands the tenant failed to make payment. It was also pleaded that a legal
notice dated 18.03.2020 was sent to the defendant through registered post demanding arrears of
rent and calling upon her to vacate the premises. According to the plaintiff, despite receipt of the
notice the defendant neither paid the arrears of rent nor vacated the premises. Consequently, the
plaintiff sought eviction of the defendant and recovery of arrears of rent amounting to Rs.15,329/-
along with other consequential reliefs.

5. The plaint was presented before the Court of Civil Judge (Senior Division)/Judge Small
Causes, Sadabad, District Hathras on 29.05.2020. Upon presentation of the plaint, the trial court
observed that the plaintiff, namely Devkinandan Agrawal, claiming himself to be the Managing
Trustee of the trust, had not clearly specified the basis on which he had been appointed as trustee or
how he was authorized to institute the suit on behalf of the trust. On this premise the trial court did
not register the case as a Small Causes Court suit but instead treated the plaint as a miscellaneous
matter and registered it as Misc. Case No.01 of 2020. The trial court further directed the plaintiff to
produce evidence regarding his authority to institute the proceedings on behalf of the trust.

6. Thereafter the trial court proceeded to hear the plaintiff on the question of admission of
the case. During the course of such proceedings, the trial court examined certain documents which
were produced by the plaintiff including the trust deed dated 09.09.1941, certain meeting agenda
dated 07.09.1971 and minutes of the meeting. Upon examining those documents the trial court
came to the conclusion that Devkinandan Agrawal was not a party to the original trust deed and
that the documents relied upon by him did not satisfactorily establish his appointment as Managing
Trustee or his authority to institute the suit on behalf of the trust. On that basis the trial court, by
order dated 27.08.2020, dismissed the case at the stage of admission itself holding that the plaintiff
had failed to establish his authority to manage the trust and therefore had no right to institute the
suit.

7. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the plaintiff preferred SCC Revision No.31 of 2020
under Section 25 of the Provincial Small Causes Courts Act before the Court of Additional District
Judge, Court No.5, Hathras. In the revision it was contended that the trial court had committed a
manifest error of law in questioning the authority of the Managing Trustee at the stage of filing of
the suit and in treating the plaint as a miscellaneous application instead of registering it as a Small
Causes Court suit. It was argued that the trial court had no jurisdiction to examine the internal
management of the trust or the authority of the Managing Trustee at the stage of institution of the
suit, particularly when the defendant had not yet been put to notice and had not raised any objection
regarding the status of the plaintiff.
754 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
8. The revisionist further contended that the trust had been in existence since 1941 and that
the trust deed was a registered document. According to the revisionist, the trial court had
unnecessarily entered into questions relating to renewal of the trust deed and the internal
administration of the trust, which were not matters required to be examined at the threshold stage of
institution of the suit. It was therefore contended that the trial court had acted illegally and
arbitrarily in dismissing the matter at the admission stage without registering the suit.

9. The respondent-tenant appeared in the revision proceedings and filed objections
contending that the revision itself was not maintainable under Section 25 of the Provincial Small
Causes Courts Act since the impugned order had been passed in a miscellaneous application and
not in a registered Small Causes Court suit. It was further contended that the trial court had
correctly observed that Devkinandan Agrawal had failed to produce any document establishing his
appointment as Managing Trustee of the trust and therefore had no authority to institute the
proceedings. The respondent pointed out that although the trust deed dated 09.09.1941 and certain
meeting agendas and minutes of meetings were produced, the trial court had found that
Devkinandan Agrawal was not a party to the original trust deed and that the documents relied upon
did not clearly establish the legal basis on which he had been appointed as Managing Trustee. On
that basis it was contended that the trial court had rightly dismissed the case.

10. The revisional court considered the rival submissions and examined the record of the
case. It was noted that the plaint which had been presented before the trial court was essentially a
suit seeking eviction of a tenant and recovery of arrears of rent, which was triable by the Court of
Small Causes. The revisional court further observed that the trial court, instead of registering the
case as a Small Causes Court suit and issuing notice to the defendant, had treated it as a
miscellaneous application and had undertaken an enquiry regarding the authority of the Managing
Trustee even before the defendant had been put to notice.

11. Upon an appraisal of the proceedings before the trial court, the revisional court found
that questions regarding the status of Devkinandan Agrawal as Managing Trustee had been raised
suo motu and theplaintiff had been directed to produce evidence in support of his claim. The trial
court thereafter examined documents relating to the trust deed, minutes of meetings and proceeded
to record findings regarding the authority of the plaintiff. According to the revisional court, the
entire process of collecting and evaluating evidence and recording findings had been undertaken by
the trial court on its own initiative without first registering the suit and without issuing notice to the
defendant.

12. Having regard to these circumstances, the revisional court held that the procedure
adopted by the trial court was contrary to the settled legal norms governing the institution and trial
of Small Causes Court suits. It was observed that the primary questions which ordinarily arise for
determination in such suits relate to the existence of the landlord-tenant relationship and the
grounds for eviction, and such questions are required to be examined only after the suit is registered
and the parties are given an opportunity to lead evidence. Questions relating to the authority of a
person to institute proceedings on behalf of a trust or other juristic entity could appropriately be
raised by the defendant during the course of the proceedings and decided by the court after
considering the evidence that may be led by the parties.
3 All. Smt. Reena Gupta Vs. Thakur Hanuman Ji Maharaj Private Trust Virajman Temple
755
13. On these considerations the revisional court concluded that the trial court had exceeded
its jurisdiction by undertaking a suo motu enquiry into the authority of the Managing Trustee and
by dismissing the case at the admission stage without registering the suit and without issuing notice
to the defendant. The revisional court accordingly set aside the order dated 27.08.2020 and directed
the trial court to register the suit as a Small Causes Court suit and proceed with it in accordance
with law after issuing notice to the opposite party.

14. This Court has heard learned counsel for the petitioner and has perused the material
brought on record. The controversy involved in the present petition lies within a narrow compass
and essentially turns upon the legality of the procedure adopted by the trial court while dealing with
the plaint presented before it.

15. The core question which arises for consideration is whether the trial court was justified
in undertaking a suo motu enquiry regarding the authority of the person instituting the suit on
behalf of the trust at the stage of institution of the suit and in dismissing the case at the admission
stage without registering it as a Small Causes Court suit and without issuing notice to the
defendant.

16. At this stage it would be appropriate to notice the procedural framework governing the
institution and trial of civil suits. The presentation of a plaint and the trial of a suit constitute
distinct stages in civil proceedings, each governed by its own procedural discipline. While the stage
of institution involves a preliminary scrutiny of the plaint, the adjudication of disputed factual
questions ordinarily arises only after the defendant has been put to notice and the parties have
completed their pleadings.

17. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has not been able to dispute the factual
position emerging from the record that the plaint presented before the trial court was not registered
as a Small Causes Court suit and that the trial court proceeded to examine the authority of the
plaintiff to institute the proceedings even before notice was issued to the defendant. The record also
indicates that the trial court recorded findings on the basis of documents relating to the internal
administration of the trust and dismissed the matter at the admission stage itself.

18. The approach adopted by the trial court in doing so cannot be sustained in law. When a
plaint is presented before a civil court, the court is ordinarily required to examine whether the plaint
discloses a cause of action and whether any legal bar to the entertainment of the suit is apparent on
the face of the record. If the plaint discloses a cause of action and no such bar is apparent, the court
is required to register the suit and proceed in accordance with law by issuing notice to the
defendant so that the dispute may be adjudicated upon after the parties have had an opportunity to
present their respective cases.

19. In the present case the trial court, instead of following this settled procedure, embarked
upon an enquiry into the internal management of the trust and the authority of the plaintiff to
institute the proceedings. The trial court examined documents such as the trust deed, meeting
agenda and minutes of meetings and recorded findings regarding the authority of the Managing
Trustee. This entire exercise was undertaken by the trial court without the defendant having been
756 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
put to notice and without any challenge having been raised by the defendant regarding the authority
of the plaintiff.

20. This Court finds that the approach adopted by the trial Court was fundamentally
flawed. It is evident from the record that by initiating an evidentiary enquiry regarding the internal
administration of the trust on its own motion, the trial court effectively assumed the role of both
judge and adversary in the proceedings. In the considered opinion of this Court, such an exercise
was wholly beyond the limited scrutiny permissible at the stage of institution of the suit. in the
proceedings. The trial Court undertook the exercise of collecting and evaluating evidence on its
own initiative even before the suit had been registered and before notice had been issued to the
defendant. Such a course of action runs contrary to the adversarial structure of civil proceedings
where disputed questions of fact are to be examined only after the parties have been afforded an
opportunity to raise their respective pleas and lead evidence in support thereof.

21. The principle which clearly emerges in this regard is that at the stage of institution of a
suit the court performs only a limited and preliminary scrutiny of the plaint. The object of such
scrutiny is merely to ascertain whether the pleadings disclose a cause of action and whether any
legal bar to the entertainment of the suit is apparent on the face of the record. The court is not
expected at that stage to undertake an adjudicatory exercise involving appreciation of evidence or
determination of disputed questions of fact. Questions relating to the authority of a person to
institute proceedings on behalf of a juristic entity such as a trust ordinarily require examination of
the trust deed, resolutions, minutes of meetings or other documents evidencing appointment or
authorization. The determination of such matters necessarily involves consideration of factual
material and surrounding circumstances and therefore constitutes a mixed question of fact and law.
In the ordinary course such objections are required to be raised by the defendant in the written
statement, whereupon the court may frame an appropriate point or issue for determination and
decide the same after the parties have been afforded a fair opportunity to adduce evidence. Any
attempt by the court to undertake such an enquiry at the threshold stage, particularly in the absence
of notice to the opposite party, amounts to a departure from the settled procedural framework
governing civil trials.

22. A civil court, at the stage of institution of a suit, is required to confine itself to a prima
facie examination of the plaint and cannot undertake a suo motu enquiry into disputed factual
issues or questions requiring appreciation of evidence, particularly in the absence of notice to the
defendant.

23. Applying the aforesaid principles to the facts of the present case, it becomes evident
that the trial court travelled far beyond the limited scrutiny permissible at the stage of institution of
the suit. Instead of registering the plaint and issuing notice to the defendant, the trial court
embarked upon an enquiry into the internal management of the trust and recorded findings
regarding the authority of the Managing Trustee. Such an exercise necessarily involved
examination of documents and evaluation of evidence, which could properly arise only during the
course of trial.
3 All. Smt. Reena Gupta Vs. Thakur Hanuman Ji Maharaj Private Trust Virajman Temple
757
24. The revisional court has merely corrected the procedural irregularity committed by the
trial court. It has not undertaken any final adjudication of the rights of the parties but has only
directed that the plaint be registered as a Small Causes Court suit and that the matter proceed in
accordance with law after issuing notice to the defendant. Such a direction ensures that the dispute
between the parties is examined after completion of pleadings and upon consideration of the
evidence that the parties may choose to lead.

25. The direction issued by the revisional court does not prejudice the rights of the
petitioner in any manner. All objections that may be available to the petitioner, including any
objection regarding the authority of the person instituting the suit on behalf of the trust, remain
open to be raised before the trial court and decided in accordance with law during the course of the
trial.

26. It may also be observed that the procedural discipline governing civil adjudication
recognizes the institution of a suit and the trial of a suit as two distinct stages of the
proceedings, each governed by its own limited scope and procedural framework. At the stage of
institution, the court is required to undertake only a prima facie scrutiny of the plaint for the
purpose of determining whether the pleadings disclose a cause of action and whether any legal
impediment to the entertainment of the suit is apparent on the face of the record. The stage of
institution is not intended to become a forum for adjudication of contested questions of fact. The
determination of such questions necessarily belongs to the stage of trial, where pleadings are
complete and both parties are afforded an opportunity to produce evidence in support of their
respective stands.

27. It is equally well settled that questions relating to the authority of a person to institute
proceedings on behalf of a juristic entity, such as a trust, society or company, ordinarily involve
examination of documents relating to appointment, internal resolutions, or governing instruments
of the entity concerned. The determination of such questions, therefore, ordinarily constitutes a
mixed question of fact and law which cannot appropriately be resolved without the benefit of
pleadings and evidence from both sides. Where such issues arise, they are to be raised by the
defendant in the written statement and thereafter determined by the court upon framing an
appropriate point or issue and considering the evidence that may be led by the parties.

28. The present case illustrates the difficulties that may arise when the court, at the
threshold stage of institution of the suit, undertakes a suo motu enquiry into matters which properly
fall within the domain of trial. By examining documents relating to the internal management of the
trust and recording findings regarding the authority of the Managing Trustee without issuing notice
to the defendant, the trial court effectively undertook an evidentiary exercise at a stage when such
an enquiry was neither required nor procedurally permissible. Such an approach is inconsistent
with the settled procedural framework governing civil trials and may result in denial of an
opportunity to the parties to properly present their respective cases.

29. The revisional court, in setting aside the order of the trial court and directing
registration of the suit followed by issuance of notice to the defendant, has merely restored the
proceedings to the stage at which the trial court ought to have proceeded in accordance with law.
758 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
The revisional court has thus ensured that the dispute between the parties is adjudicated through the
normal process of pleadings, framing of issues and appreciation of evidence.

30. Consequently, this Court finds that the revisional court rightly interfered with the order
passed by the trial court and merely restored the proceedings to the stage at which they ought to
have proceeded in accordance with law, namely registration of the suit and issuance of notice to the
defendant so that the dispute may be adjudicated upon after completion of pleadings and
consideration of evidence.

31. No material illegality, jurisdictional error or perversity has been demonstrated in the
order passed by the revisional court so as to warrant interference by this Court in exercise of its
supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

32. The petition is devoid of merit and is, accordingly, dismissed.

33. It is clarified that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the claims
or defences of the parties. All questions including the authority of the person instituting the suit on
behalf of the trust, the existence of the landlordtenant relationship, and the entitlement of the
plaintiff to the reliefs claimed shall remain open to be raised before and determined by the trial
court in accordance with law. The trial court shall proceed with the matter after registering the suit
and issuing notice to the defendant and shall make an endeavour to conclude the proceedings
expeditiously, in accordance with law.
----------
(2026) 3 ILRA 758
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 13.03.2026

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MANISH MATHUR, J.

Matters Under Article 227 No. 8772 of 2025

Smt. Alka Singhania ...Petitioner
Versus
Smt. Shilpa Agarwal ...Respondent

Issue for Consideration
Whether imposition of a condition to submit security bond of the equal amount is arbitrary, especially when
there are no other claimants/ heirs of the deceased and the only other heir of the deceased, the
defendant/respondent has no objection in case succession certificate is issued to the petitioner.

Head Notes
The Constitution of India, 1950-Article 227; Indian Succession Act, 1926- Section 372 & 375-
Section
375
of
the
ISA
clearly
shows
that
the
imposition
of
a
condition
of
security/surety/indemnity bond is in order to indemnify person(s) or safeguard the interests of
such persons who may be entitled to the whole or any part of the debt and security. A condition