Bhupinder Singh v. Joginder Singh (D) by LRs. & Ors.
Background
The respondents had filed a suit under Section 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure seeking a scheme for proper management of a village Gurudwara in Ambala, alleging it was a public place of worship being mismanaged by the appellant's family, who were traditionally its Mohtmims (caretakers). The appellant argued the Gurudwara was his family's private property and that the suit itself was not maintainable because the mandatory prior leave of the court to file such a suit had never actually been granted. Both the trial court and the lower appellate courts had ruled against the appellant and framed a management scheme for the Gurudwara.
Decision Breakdown
The Supreme Court agreed that, as a matter of law, the appellant was technically correct: no formal leave under Section 92 CPC had been granted before the suit was instituted, which would normally be fatal to such a suit. However, the Court found that the appellant had never raised this objection at trial despite being aware of this requirement (he had successfully used the same objection in an earlier, separate suit), had fully participated in a trial on merits, and had himself admitted facts (such as land being donated by villagers) supporting the finding that the Gurudwara was public, not private, property. On these peculiar facts, the Court declined to overturn the concurrent findings and dismissed the appeal, explicitly directing that the decision not be treated as a precedent.
Lesson Learnt
A technical legal defect, such as a missing procedural permission, can be lost if a party fails to raise it at the earliest opportunity and instead fully participates in the trial on merits: courts are reluctant to upset settled factual findings on a technicality raised too late.