M. Venugopal, J.@mdashThe Appellants/Applicants/Plaintiffs have preferred these Original Side Appeals as against the common order, dated
11.09.2012, in O.A. Nos. 363, 365 to 369 of 2012 in C.S. No. 504 of 2011, passed by the Learned Single Judge, in dismissing the Applications.
2. The Learned Single Judge, while passing the common order, in O.A. Nos. 363, 365 to 369 of 2012 in C.S. No. 504 of 2011, on 11.09.2012,
has, inter alia, observed that ''the right of the parties to the trust has to be decided first and the same can be done only after completion of the trial
in the suit filed by the Applicants for a declaration declaring them as valid Board of Trustees'' and also found that the Respondents are continuing
as trustees for the past 12 years and running the Educational institution of the Trust and consequently, dismissed the applications holding that they
are not entitled for any relief.
3. According to the Learned Counsel for the Appellants/Applicants/Plaintiffs, the Learned Single Judge had committed an error in holding that the
Appellants/Plaintiffs are not entitled to the relief of interim injunction claimed in the Original Application Nos. 363, 365 to 369 of 2012 until
disposal of suit in O.S. No. 12958 of 2010 pending on the file of the Learned XVI Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai.
4. The Learned Counsel for the Appellants/Applicants/Plaintiffs submits that the Learned Single Judge had dismissed O.A. Nos. 363, 365 to 369
of 2012 without marking documents of both parties as Exhibits in terms of Order 15 Rule 9 and Order 17 Rule 8 of the Rules of the High Court,
Madras, Original Side, 1956 read with Rule 44 and 79 of the Civil Rules of Practice.
5. Advancing his arguments, the Learned Counsel for the Appellants contends that the Learned Single Judge relied on the Advocate Notice dated
16.07.2008 cited by the Respondents when it had no evidentiary value and wrongly came to the conclusion that the 1st Respondent is the
Chairman of the Trust, when, in fact, there was no resolution in any validly convened meeting.
6. It is represented on behalf of the Appellants that AICTE is confined only with the role of granting recognition and renewal of academic courses
and it is only the Income Tax Department under Section 12AA and Section 80G of the Income Tax Act, 1961 alone is the competent authority to
approve Public Trusts. Moreover, the Public Trusts are under the control of the Courts. In fact, the stand of the Appellants is that the Learned
Single Judge had erroneously concluded that AICTE is the approving authority of the Trust etc.
7. The Learned Counsel for the Appellants brings it to the notice of this Court that the 2nd Appellant/Plaintiff is the Founder and Settler of
''Thiruthani Arulmiku Murugan Educational Trust'' and the said Public Charitable and Educational Trust Deed was executed and registered along
with six other Board of Trustees as per the Trust Deed on 15.09.1997 consisting of Appellants 3 to 7 together with the 1st Respondent as Board
of Trustees. Except that, the 3rd Appellant who resigned by the resolution of the Board dated 23.04.1999, none of the Board of Trustees had
validly resigned by any resolution of the Board and as such, all the Trustees/Appellants continue to function as Trustees and the said factum was
confirmed by this Court.
8. The grievance of the Appellants is that the Learned Single Judge had completely overlooked the nature of the relief sought for by them since
they had only prayed for preventive relief by way of pre-empting the Respondents from misusing the 54 minutes from 01.01.2000 to 01.01.2011
for the benefit of their own family, such as execution of Supplementary Deed by converting the Public Trust into their family entity/property,
alienation of the Trust Property for their own benefit etc.
9. The Learned Counsel for the Appellants vehemently projects an argument that the Learned Single Judge had erred in holding that the
Respondents are running the Trust for the past 12 years from the materials on record, without mentioning the details of the records or documents
he relied upon to arrive at such a conclusion. Added further, in O.A. No. 363 of 2012, the Appellants had only prayed for the relief of interim
injunction against using 3 minutes dated 01.01.2000, 01.07.2002 and 01.01.2008 authored by the Respondents, which are illegal, against the
provisions of the Trust Deed and Trust Act.
10. The Learned Counsel for the Appellant contends that for the grant of interim injunction, a prima facie case is to be seen besides an irreparable
injury that would be caused if interim injunction was not granted and the balance of convenience favouring the Appellants.
11. The Learned Counsel for the Appellants strenuously submits that the Learned Single Judge failed to discern the difference between the minutes
dated 25.10.1999 in Tamil with the address of the Office of the Trust at Kodambakkam and signed by the 2nd and 7th Appellants and the 1st
Respondent, who constituted the original Board of Trustees, administrative powers were exclusively delegated to the 1st Respondent to manage
the Trust and discharge the outside liabilities juxtaposed to the fabricated minutes dated 25.10.1999 in English fabricated by the 1st Respondent
and failed to notice that (i) no address in the Minutes (ii) the claim of permanent transfer of the Trust to the 1st respondent made out in the
fabricated English version was not at all there in the Tamil version and (iii) whereas there are 7 signatories in the Tamil version, there are only 4
signatories in the English version and more significantly, no claim whatsoever like permanent transfer was made out in the suit filed by the 1st
Respondent in O.S. No. 5851 of 2004 before the 11th Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai.
12. The Learned Counsel for the Appellants contends that the Learned Single Judge had failed to appreciate that a sum of Rs. 75 lakhs was
decidedly not settled by the 1st Respondent and further, the 1st Respondent had not established that he settled all the dues of Rs. 75,00,000/- to
all the trustees of the First Part as per MOU vide order dated 29.09.2009 in A.S. No. 324 of 2007 passed by the V Additional Judge, City Civil
Court, Chennai and in the concurrent judgment, in S.A. No. 63 of 2010 by this Court.
13. The real grievance of the Appellants is that the names of 2nd and 4th Appellants were not found a place in any of the first nine meetings but
were incorporated in the tenth meeting dated 25.10.1999 and recorded in English. Whereas the actual meeting of the Board of Trustees was held
on 25.10.1999 and the minutes were recorded in Tamil in two pages and signed by 6 Appellants/Trustees including S. Srinivasan and also the 1st
Respondent, in the fabricated ''Tenth Minutes dated 25.10.1999 in English'' produced by the 1st Respondent, the signatories of 2nd, 3rd and 4th
Appellants are conspicuously missing.
14. The Learned Counsel for the Appellants submits that there was no proof of any payment of Rs. 75,00,000/-, as agreed to be paid before
31.12.2000, by the 1st Respondent and in the absence of signing of any document, as contemplated under Article (6) of the Memorandum of
Understanding between the parties, vide the fraudulent minutes dated 1.1.2000, the Respondents resolved among themselves that the 1st
Respondent had discharged all the obligations under the MOU and that the Appellants had relinquished their rights as Trustees and further that, the
Respondents and their grandchildren for life would deem to be the Trustees, but these were not taken into account by the Learned Single Judge,
while giving them the benefit of Trustees for the past 12 years.
15. On behalf of the Appellants, a plea is taken that the 11th minutes of the meetings dated 1.1.2000 is an offshoot of the fabricated 10 minutes
from 1.10.1997 to 25.10.1999 and the fabricated statement of accounts so as to take over the trust by S. Saravanamuthu filed/marked on
11.09.2006 during the proceedings in O.S. No. 5851 of 2004 and hence, it is a continuation of fabrication, falsehood and illegal claims.
16. According to the Appellants, the Respondents claimed that the reconstitution of the Board of Trustees was based on a Board Resolution dated
1.7.2002 in the Supplementary Deed dated 10.07.2007 and in fact, no such Resolution was filed as a document either along with the 1st
Respondent''s Plaint dated 13.10.2004 in O.S. No. 5851 of 2004 or during the deposition on 11.09.2006, wherein he had filed fabricated and
forged documents, by way of ten minutes of the Board Meeting from 1.10.1997 to 25.10.1999 nor had he mentioned about the existence of the
said minutes anywhere in his Plaint or affidavit or as documents in the said proceedings which clearly prove that the minutes dated 01.07.2002 was
non-existent but was only fabricated the Supplementary Deed dated 10.07.2007. However, these vital facts were not adverted to by the Learned
Single Judge at the time of passing the order in the Applications in question.
17. The Learned Counsel for the Appellants contends that the Learned Single Judge had failed to advert to the fact that the Learned IX
Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet had taken prima facie cognizance of the criminal offences committed by the Respondents under various
Sections of Indian Penal Code for fraudulently executing and registering the said Supplementary Deed dated 10.07.2007 in C.C. No. 797 of
2011, as per order dated 09.02.2011.
18. The Learned Counsel for the Appellants takes a prime stand that the Learned Single Judge had failed to take into consideration the Judgment
of this Court in S.A. No. 63 of 2010 wherein it was clearly observed that the Appellants/Petitioners had entrusted the administration of the Trust
for the sole purpose of achieving the objectives of the Trust Institution and not according to the whims and fancies of the 1st Respondent for his
personal benefits etc.
19. The Learned Counsel for the Appellants contends that the Learned Single Judge had erred in concluding that the Respondents are the Trustees
of the Trust which is running the Educational Institution whereas the 1st Respondent''s Appeal in SLP(Civil). No. 26524 of 2010 against the order
dated 30.04.2010 of this Court in S.A. No. 63 of 2010 was dismissed on 18.10.2010 and in this background, the view taken by the Learned
Single Judge that the Respondents 2 to 5 were Trustees much less for 12 years is a perverse, presumptive and unsustainable in the eye of law.
20. The Learned Counsel for the Appellants submits that the Civil Suit in OS. No. 504 of 2011 was filed by the Appellants/Plaintiffs for
declaration of 54 minutes contrived by the Respondents from 1.1.2000 to 1.1.2011 are illegal, invalid and inoperative and for the relief of
perpetual and mandatory injunctions against the Respondents from alienating the Trust properties etc. However, the declaration sought for in O.S.
No. 12958 of 2010 before the Learned XVI Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai is to declare that the Respondents 2 to 7/Appellants are
the valid trustees in terms of the Original Trust Deed dated 15.09.1997 read with the Deed of Cancellation dated 05.02.2010 to the exclusion of
all the five Respondents and for consequent injunctions, but the Learned Single Judge, while passing the impugned order, in A. Nos. 363, 365 to
369 of 2012 in OS. No. 504 2011, had not borne in mind the three principles enunciated by the Hon''ble Supreme Court of India in regard to the
grant of interim injunction.
21. The Learned Counsel for the Appellants contends that in the meeting of the Board of Trustees held on 04.11.2012 it was resolved that the
Advocate Notice dated 16.07.2008 was issued with the knowledge and authorisation of the Board of Trustees as at no point of time the 1st
Respondent was appointed as Chairman and Managing Trustee in any of the validly convened meeting nor any demand was raised against the 1st
Respondent nor V. Murthy, Chairman was authorised to cause such notice and consequently, clarification of notice was issued to the 1st
Respondent and also to the counsel for the Respondents vide Notices dated 11.11.2012.
22. Conversely, it is the submission of the Learned Counsel for the Respondents 1 to 5 that the Appellants/Petitioners filed O.S. No. 12958 of
2010 on the file of the XVI Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai seeking a declaration that they are the real Trustees of the Trust called
''Thiruthani Arulmighu Murugan Educational Trust'' and unless they get a favourable decision in their favour, they have no right to file the present
Civil Suit in OS. No. 504 of 2012 before this Court seeking a declaration that the 54 minutes from 1.1.2000 to 01.01.2011 named as 11th to
64th minutes fabricated by the Defendants as illegal etc. and for other consequential relief of permanent injunction.
23. The Learned Counsel for the Respondents contends that the Appellants/Petitioners had handed over the entire Trust and its administration to
the 1st Respondent, by means of a Resolution, dated 25.10.1999, by relinquishing their rights and as such, they are estopped from claiming any
right over the Trust or its administration.
24. The stand of the Respondents is that the Resolution dated 25.10.1999 is quite clear to the effect that the Appellants/Petitioners were not
interested to continue as Trustees and as such, their claim that they had passed the Resolution after 23.04.2009 has no sanctity/validity in law and
especially, when the suit O.S. No. 12958 of 2010 on the file of the Learned XVI Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai is pending for the
relief of declaration that they are the real Trustees. Moreover, the said suit and the applications filed therein are pending as on date. That apart, the
Respondents are running the institutions for the past 14 years and the balance of convenience is in their favour.
25. According to the Learned Counsel for the Respondents, the 3rd Petitioner had resigned from the Board of Trustees on and from 23.04.1999
and in fact, he has no right to file a suit when his liabilities had to be discharged by the parties to the Memorandum of Understanding dated
27.10.1999 which prompted him to withdraw the suit. Indeed, the induction of Respondents 2 to 5 in the Trust Board was known to the
Appellants/Petitioners as early as in the year 2005 when suit O.S. No. 40 of 2005 was filed.
26. It is also the stand of the Respondents that cancellation of the Supplementary Trust Deed was only for tax exemption, is void ab initio.
27. In substance, the stand of the Respondents is that till the suit O.S. No. 12958 of 2010 pending on the file of the Learned XVI Assistant Judge,
City Civil Court, Chennai is disposed of in favour of the Appellants/Petitioners any number of resolutions purported to have been passed by them
are of no validity in the eye of law.
28. Lastly, it is the contention of the Learned Counsel for the Respondents that the fact of resignations of the some of the Trustees and the
Appellants/Petitioners having been party to the resolutions by their conduct are estopped in law to proclaim that they are the Trustees still to be
proved in the declaratory suit filed by them in O.S. No. 12958 of 2010 pending of the file of the Learned XVI Assistant Judge, City Civil Court,
Chennai.
29. Countering the submissions of the Learned Counsel for the Respondents, the Learned Counsel for the Appellants/Applicants/Plaintiffs submits
that in S.A. No. 63 of 2010 (filed by the 1st Respondent in the OSAs), as an Appellant/Plaintiff, this Court had clearly non-suited the
Appellant/Plaintiff (1st Respondent in OSA) for the relief sought for by him in the suit and that apart, it was also observed in the said Judgment, in
paragraph No. 27, to the following effect that ''27.... On the other hand, it is crystal clear from the recitals found in Ex. A2 that the amount was
proposed to be taken out of the funds of the Trust and paid to the defendants. The plaintiff as well as the defendants seem to have made a device
by entering into the MOU to share the funds of the Trust, which is against the purpose and object of the Trust, and moreover, in the said Second
Appeal Judgment, it was observed that no injunction could be sought for against the 1st Respondent therein (V. Moorthy) on the premise that he
cease to be a Trustee of the said Trust.
30. Besides these, in paragraph 27 of the said Second Appeal Judgment, it was observed by the Learned Single Judge that ''In fact clause 12 of
the Trust deed marked as Ex. B1 bars the Trustees and their relatives from being benefited by the Trust fund.''
31. At this juncture, the Learned Counsel for the Appellants/Applicants/Plaintiffs refers to the following decisions in regard to the grant of
injunctions by a Court of Law based on prima facie case projected by a party.
(i) Deoraj Vs. State of Maharashtra and Others, (ii) Dorab Cawasji Warden Vs. Coomi Sorab Warden and others,
(iii) Dalpat Kumar and Another Vs. Prahlad Singh and Others,
(iv) Seema Arshad Zaheer and Others Vs. Municipal Corpn. of Greater Mumbai and Others,
(v) M. Gurudas and Others Vs. Rasaranjan and Others,
32. Apart from the above, the Learned Counsel for the Appellants seeks in aid of the following decisions in regard to the ''Delegation and Powers
of Trustees''.
(i) L. Janakirama Iyer and Others Vs. P.M. Nilakanta Iyer and Others,
(ii) Sheikh Abdul Kayum Vs. Mulla Alibhai,
(iii) J.P. Srivastava and Sons Pvt. Ltd. and Others Vs. Gwalior Sugar Co. Ltd. and Others, .
(iv) In Re: H.E.H. The Nizam''s Jewellery Trust,
33. Furthermore, as regards the Validity of Resolution Valid Meetings, on the side of the Appellants, the following decisions are relied.
(i) Shri Cutchi Visa Oswal Derawasi Jain Pathshala Vs. Shri Cutchi Visha Oswal Derawasi Jain Mahajan and Another,
(ii) Shri Parmeshwari Prasad Gupta Vs. The Union of India (UOI),
34. Added further, on the side of the Appellants, for a Bar under Order II Rule 2 and 3 of the Civil Procedure Code, following decisions were
cited.
(i) Gurbux Singh Vs. Bhooralal,
(ii) Sidramappa Vs. Rajashetty and Others,
(iii) Ramalinga Bajanai Madam by Muthupillai Vs. Gerart Pappammal and Others,
35. In regard to the applicability of Section 46 of the Indian Trusts Act, 1882 (pertaining to Public Trusts) and Family controlled Public Trusts, on
the side of the Appellants, the following decisions were relied upon.
(i) Sarda Education Trust Vs. Mukund Rambhau Pinjarkar, Prakash Sitaram Lokhe and The Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal,
(ii) Kodi P. Muthirala Pillai Vs. G. Thyagarajaswami Pillai and Others,
36. At this stage, this Court very pertinently points out that the Appellants/Applicants/Plaintiffs have filed OS. No. 504 of 2011 on the file of this
Court seeking for a declaratory relief that the 54 minutes from 1.1.2000 to 1.1.2011 named as 11th to 64th minutes fabricated by the Defendants
as illegal, invalid etc.; for the relief of permanent injunctions restraining the Defendants from using and claiming any rights by virtue of the 54
minutes; for permanent injunction restraining the Defendants from authorising or making or deciding or resolving by way of minutes of the meeting
representing the 1st Plaintiff as well as the Thiruthani Polytechnic College owned by the 1st Plaintiff in any manner whatsoever; for permanent
injunction restraining the Defendants from alienating the 1st Plaintiff Trust and the Thiruthani Polytechnic College owned by the 1st Plaintiff to any
Trust or Society/Association etc.; and to grant an order of permanent injunction restraining the Defendants from corresponding with All India
Technical Council for Technical Education (AICTE), Tamil Nadu Government, Department of Technical Education (DOTE), Chennai, Director
(Exemptions), Income Tax Department, Banks and any other statutory authorities etc.
37. In the pending Civil Suit before this Court, the Applications in O.A. Nos. 363, 365 to 369 of 2012 were filed by the
Appellants/Applicants/Plaintiffs seeking the relief of ad interim injunction against the Respondents/Defendants for the reasons mentioned therein.
38. In this connection, this Court very relevantly points out that the Appellants/Applicants as Plaintiffs in O.S. No. 12958 of 2010 on the file of the
XVI Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai had sought the following reliefs:
(a) Declare that the Thiruthani Arulmighu Murugan Educational Trust executed and registered under Regn. No. 810 of 1997 on 15.09.1997 and
granted Registration u/s. 12AA of Income Tax Act, 1961 under letter No. DIT (E) No. 2(1072) 06-07 dated 17.09.2007 and rectified under
''Cancellation Deed cum Rectification Deed'' dated 05.02.2010 as the only valid Board of Trustees
(b) Permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering in the management, administration and affairs of the Trust and of Thiruthani
Polytechnic College functioning under the said Trust in Thiruthani in terms of handling admission of students, administration including appointments,
accounts in any manner whatsoever.
(c) Permanent injunction restraining the defendants from using and or claiming any rights by virtue of the Supplementary Deed dated 10.07.2007
executed and registered on the basis of a Resolutions dated 25.10.1999 and 1.7.2002 in any manner whatsoever.
(d) Permanent injunction restraining the defendants from using and or claiming any rights by virtue of the fabricated ''Ten Minutes of the Meetings
from 1.10.1997 to 25.10.1999'' filed on 11.09.2006 during the proceedings in O.S. No. 5851 of 2004 whatsoever.
(e) Permanent injunction restraining the defendants from using and or claiming any rights by virtue of a fraudulent Minutes/Resolution dated
1.1.2000 in any manner whatsoever.
39. Significantly, in C.S. No. 504 of 2011 on the file of this Court, the Appellants/Plaintiffs in para 3 of the Plaint had stated as follows:
3. The plaintiffs state that the 2nd plaintiff has been authorised to by the Board and the trustees set out as first and third to seventh plaintiffs in terms
of the Board of Trustees Minutes/Resolutions dated 24.10.2010 and 21.11.2010 to file this suit and also to represent them in the proceedings as
he is fully conversant with the details, records, having sufficient particulars and valid references.
40. It cannot be gainsaid that the relief of injunction is an equitable relief and the question of temporary injunction can be decided only on the basis
of the undisputed facts and material which can be legitimately taken into account at the time of deciding the interlocutory applications.
41. It is true that even in a Civil Suit, the power of granting injunction is discretionary, in the considered opinion of this Court. Furthermore, while
granting the relief of temporary injunction, it is not palatable/desirable for a Court of Law to record a finding on the merits of the case, as opined by
this Court.
42. At this stage, this Court recalls and recollects the decision of the Hon''ble Supreme Court in Vijay Singh Gond and Others Vs. Union of India
(UOI) and Others, , whereby and whereunder, it is held that ''Where grant of interim relief would create more problems, complications and
confusions, then, the Court would not grant the same''.
43. Also this Court aptly points out the decision of the Hon''ble Supreme Court in Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited and others V. Prem Chand
Premi and another, (2005) 13 Supreme Court Cases 505 wherein it is held that ''The High Court had erred in granting final relief at interim stage as
the issue seem to be highly debatable''.
44. It is to be noted that at the time of grant of interim injunction, a Court of Law is to exercise its discretion and ordinarily, such a relief is granted
in aid of primary relief claimed in the suit. At the stage of hearing of interlocutory applications, a Court of Law is not supposed to hold/conduct a
mini-trial.
45. It is to be borne in mind that an order of temporary injunction is in the nature of preventive relief and the same is ordinarily, granted by a Court
of Law exercising its judicial discretion based on facts and circumstances of a given case. Ordinarily, if a relief cannot be granted in the main suit
itself, the same is impermissible by way of interim injunction. It is also well settled proposition of law that even if all the circumstances exist, a Court
of Law is not bound to grant the relief of temporary injunction inasmuch as the discretion has been conferred upon it by the use of the word ''May''
under Order 39 Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Code which in the context means ''May'' and ''shall''. In this regard, a Court of Law is to exercise its
judicial discretion based on sound principles and not in an arbitrary fashion.
46. Suffice it for this Court to point out that the aim of the jurisdiction of a Civil Court under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 and not in terms of Section
151 of the Civil Procedure Code is to confer with the power to fulfil its duty with a view to render justice between the parties before it. Even
orders passed on interlocutory proceedings, do not conclude the merits of the case. A Court of Law is to act with great care and circumspection
by bearing in mind that the relief of interim injunction is not to be granted by way of final relief at the interlocutory stage.
47. On a careful consideration of respective contentions and on an overall assessment of the facts and circumstances of the case in an integral
manner, this Court, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the matter and also not delving deep into the same, by exercising its judicial
discretion, comes to an inescapable and resultant conclusion that the Appellants/Applicants, at the first instance, are prima facie to get their rights
established for the relief of declaration that they are the real Trustees of the Trust called ''Thiruthani Arulmighu Murugan Educational Trust'' in O.S.
No. 12958 of 2010 pending on the file of the Learned XVI Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai. Further, the 54 minutes from 1.1.2000 to
1.1.2011 and the other 10 minutes of the meeting from 1.10.1997 to 25.5.1999, which are questioned before this Court, are to be decided finally,
by letting in of oral, documentary evidence and marking of exhibits by the parties concerned. Indeed, the contentious issues, based on a mixed
question of Facts and Law in the present Civil Suit in OS. No. 504 of 2011 are only to be decided in the trial of the main suit. Before that, the
Appellants/Applicants cannot be granted the relief of interim injunctions as sought for by them in the Applications. In short, this Court is of the
considered view that whether the minutes of the meetings are real/genuine or fabricated are all matters to be traversed/decided in a threadbare
fashion, in the main Civil Suit in OS. No. 504 of 2011, for arriving at a complete and comprehensive conclusion/decision, in the subject matters in
issue. Viewed in that perspective, the common order of the Learned Single Judge, in O.A. Nos. 363, 365 to 369 of 2012 in OS. No. 504 of
2011, dated 11.09.2012, in dismissing the Applications, is not liable to be interfered with by this Court. Consequently, Original Side Appeals fail.
48. In the result, the Original Side Appeals are dismissed. No costs. Liberty is granted to the respective parties to raise all factual and legal pleas,
in the subject matter in issue, (including the citing of relevant case laws relied upon by them), at the time of the trial in OS. No. 504 of 2011 before
the Learned Single Judge, as they deem fit and proper. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.