Advocates:
A.T.M.SAMPATH, K.PARASARAN ATTORNEY, P.N.Ramalingam, REVATHY RAGHAVAN, S.BALAKRISHNAN, S.Padmanabhan

Certainly. Based on the provided legal document, the key points are as follows:

1. Leave under Section 92 of CPC: The institution of a suit involving public charities, trusts, or religious or charitable trusts requires prior leave of the court. This leave acts as a condition precedent for maintaining such suits (!) (!) .

2. Procedure for granting leave: The court's grant of leave is an administrative act, and traditionally, it has been considered that no notice to the respondents is necessary before such leave is granted (!) (!) .

3. Right to oppose leave: Although the court may not be obliged to give notice before granting leave, it is generally advisable for the court to do so as a matter of caution. This ensures that respondents have an opportunity to present their objections or defenses, especially to prevent frivolous or reckless suits (!) .

4. Effect of granting leave without notice: If leave is granted without giving notice to the respondents, the leave itself is not automatically invalid. A suit instituted on the basis of such leave remains valid unless the leave is revoked on merits through an appropriate application (!) .

5. Revocation of leave: Respondents have the right to file an application for revocation of leave if they believe it was granted improperly, such as without notice or on incorrect grounds. The court can then consider such applications on their merits (!) .

6. Appeals against leave orders: An appeal lies against the refusal of leave under Section 92. However, no appeal lies against the grant of leave, implying that the initial grant, even if made without notice, is not necessarily subject to appeal (!) .

7. Implication for suits: A suit based on leave granted without notice is not inherently invalid or non-maintainable. The primary concern is ensuring that the proper legal procedure is followed, and respondents' rights to oppose or revoke leave are preserved (!) .

8. Judicial discretion: While it is preferable for courts to give notice before granting leave, the absence of such notice does not automatically invalidate the suit. The courts have the discretion to balance the need for expedition with procedural fairness (!) .

9. Legal object of Section 92: The section aims to prevent frivolous or reckless suits against public trusts by requiring leave, but it also recognizes the need for procedural flexibility to avoid unnecessary delays, especially in urgent circumstances (!) .

10. Overall conclusion: Granting leave under Section 92 without notice to respondents is permissible, and such leave, if properly granted, does not invalidate the subsequent suit. Respondents retain the right to challenge the leave through revocation proceedings, which must be considered on their merits (!) .

Please let me know if you need further elaboration or assistance with this matter.