IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.BHAVADASAN THURSDAY, THE 25TH MARCH 2010 / 4TH CHAITHRA 1932 CRP.No. 174 of 2010 ----------------------------- [OP.NO.274/2008 OF I ADDL. DISTRICT COURT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM] .................... PETITIONERS/COUNTER PETITIONERS: --------------------------------------------------------- 1. IQBAL COLLEGE TRUST, A PUBLIC CHARITABLE TRUST, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, PERINGAMMALA P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. DR.H.M.SUBAIR, SECRETARY, PERINGAMMALA, IQBAL COLLEGE TRUST, NEDUMANGAD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADVS. SRI.P.A.AHAMMED, SRI.THOUFEEK AHAMED. RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS: --------------------------------------------- 1. BADRUDEEN, S/O.ABDUL RAZAK, T.C.25/103791), THYCAUD P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. ABDUL MAJEED, S/O.MOHAMMED KUNJU, VARUVILA, NEDUMANGAD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 25/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: prv. P. BHAVADASAN, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - C.R.P. No. 174 of 2010 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 25th day of March, 2010. ORDER In this revision petition, the petitioner assails the order passed by the Additional District Court-I, Thiruvananthapuram in O.P. 274 of 2009. 2. Petitioners are counter petitioners in O.P. 274 of 2008 on the file of the Additional District Court, Thiruvananthapuram. That was a petition seeking leave of the court to institute a suit under Section 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure. It appears that the counter petitioner had filed a counter. The court below found that the matter involved in the suit falls within the ambit of Section 92 CPC and granted leave. The said order is assailed. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners points out that the relief sought for in the CRP.174/2010. 2 suit is one, which is covered by the decision in another suit from which appeals are pending before this court. It is pointed out that the trustee, against whom the relief is sought is appointed by this court and therefore the lower court could not remove them. It is also pointed out that accounts are maintained properly and various other aspects were also pointed out and contended that leave ought not to have been granted. 4. There is no merit in the above submission at all. At the time of granting leave to institute a suit under Section 92 CPC, following things have to ascertained, (1) whether the matter relates to public trust,(2) the person, who instituted the claim has interest in the trust (3) any part of the subject matter of the trust is within the jurisdiction of the court empowered by the State Government and (4) If the reliefs sought for fall under Section 92. CRP.174/2010. 3 5. Merits of the case is not a matter to be gone into at this stage. Even assuming that leave is granted to institute a suit, that does not mean that the respondents before the court below cannot challenge the leave granted at a later stage. 6. They can seek to have the leave revoked on sustainable grounds. I fail to see how any of the reliefs sought for can be granted in view of the fact that no prejudice is caused to the petitioners and their rights are not affected. Moreover Order I Rule 8 publication etc will be only after institution of the suit. As already stated the petitioners before the court below have been granted leave to institute the suit. The petitioners herein have the liberty to urge all their contentions in the suit and get the matter adjudicated. They can even raise preliminary issues regarding the maintainability of the suit. None of their rights are affected by the impugned order. CRP.174/2010. 4 Therefore, this revision petition is without merits and accordingly it is dismissed. P. BHAVADASAN, JUDGE sb.