The 1st petitioner-Trust was created under a deed, dated 16.05.1974, by four trustees, by name, Juloori Veereshalingam, his son-Juloori Nagaraja Rao, Chama Kasinath-2nd petitioner herein, and Batchu Srinivas Rao-4th respondent herein. One of the objects of the Trust was to construct a community hall for the benefit of the economically weaker sections. It acquired properties, over a period of time. Juloori Veereshalingam and Nagaraja Rao died in the year 1979 and 1987, respectively. Juloori Vajramma, wife of Veereshalingam, was made as trustee. However, she is said to have resigned later. A big community hall has been constructed by the Trust at Kharkana, Secunderabad.

2. In the recent past, the Trust was reconstructed and petitioners 3 and 4, who are sons of the 2nd respondent, were inducted as trustees. Respondents 1 and 2, who are the sons of late Juloori Nagaraja Rao, one of the deceased trustees, and the 3rd respondent, who is said to be a Social Worker, presented a plaint in the Court of Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, under Section 92 of C.P.C., for the relief of declaration, to the effect that the existing trustees are disqualified from being continued as trustees; a decree for rendition of accounts and to frame a scheme for administration of the Trust, as per its objects. It was also urged that the development agreement entered into in relation to the property held by the Trust, be declared as not binding on the trustees and the general public, and that a perpetual injunction restraining the respondents therein from interfering with the affairs of the Trust, be granted. Respondents 1 to 3 filed I.A.No.1623 of 2008, seeking permission to file the suit. The trial Court issued notices to the petitioners herein and respondents 4 to 10. The matter was mainly contested by the petitioners herein. On a consideration of the arguments advanced by both the parties, the trial Court allowed the LA., through order, dated 30.09.2008. The same is challenged in this revision.

3. Sri T. Surya Satish, learned counsel for the petitioners, submits that the trial Court did not take into account, the parameters of Section 92 CP.C, in the context of granting leave. He contends that the Trust is functioning strictly in accordance with the terms of the trust deed and the suit was filed, only with a view to settle the personal scores. He submits that the petitioners were responsible in mobilizing the funds and the development agreement was brought into existence, only with a view to advance the objectives of the Trust. Learned counsel contends that the leave granted in favour of respondents 1 to 3 is defective, contrary to law and untenable.

4. Sri R.A. Achuthanand, learned counsel for respondents 1 to 3, on the other hand, submits that the trial Court considered the pleadings in detail and arrived at a conclusion that his clients deserve to be granted leave to file the suit. He contends that the various submissions made by the petitioners herein on merits, need to be gone into, in detail, in the suit, on the basis of the evidence that may be adduced by the parties.

5. Section 92 CP.C provides for a typical category of suits, which are not adversarial in nature. The emphasis objective is to protect the public properties and Trusts. With a view to ensure that no frivolous litigation is instituted in respect of public trusts, the Section mandates that the leave of the Court is necessary, before the suit is registered. It is in this context that respondents 1 to 3 filed the I.A.

6. The parameters that need to be taken into account, while granting leave, are laid down by the Supreme Court from time to time. The latest of them is Vidyodayn Trust v. Mohan Prasad and others (1) 2008 (4) SCJ 529 = 25 (2008) 4 SCC 115 = 2009 (1) ALT 29.2 (ON SC). The gist of the judgment is that, while the leave to file a suit under Section 92 C.P.C., cannot be granted for the asking of it, the enquiry that is to be undertaken in such matters should not have an