REVA KHETRAPAL, J.

1. By this petition, leave is sought by the petitioners 1 to 3 to institute a suit under Section 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure as per the draft plaint enclosed, in respect of the respondent No.1, which is a public charitable trust set up in India on the 25th day of February, 1992 by a trust deed of the same date.

.2. The petitioner No.1 is an organization established under the laws of England and is registered as a Charity bearing No.1085760, set up with the object of improving the condition and welfare of animals, particularly equine animals. The petitioner No.2 is the erstwhile Chairman of the Animal Welfare Board constituted under the provisions of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960 by the Government of India from the years 1992 to 1996. The petitioner No.3 is an educationist by profession and was head of

.the Academic Department in the Indian Military Academy, Dehradun and is interested in the welfare of animals, and thus interested in the respondent No.1 trust.

3. The petitioner No.1 claims to be the guiding force behind the respondent No.1 trust and to have lent its name and goodwill to the respondent No.1 trust. Apart from this, during the years March, 1992 to January, 1997, the petitioner No.1 claims to have remitted a sum of Rs.1,80,00,000/- (Rupees One Crore Eighty Lacs only) to the respondent No.1 trust, as per the particulars given in the petition, through bank Remittances. The petitioner No.1, as a part of its activities, was desirous of setting up a hospital for animals in the Region of Delhi and made known its said intention to the respondent No.1 through the respondent No.2, who was entrusted with the duty of purchasing real estate in and around Delhi for the aforesaid purpose. The respondent No.2 informed the petitioner No.1 that he had acquired land in Village Bhondsi in District Gurgaon (Haryana). The respondent No.2, however, did not furnish any account of the money spent in the acquisition of the same and also did not give any account of the other steps, if any, taken by him or by the respondent No.1 for setting up of a hospital for the animals on the said land.

4. According to the petitioners, the factual position is that despite huge funds having been provided by the petitioner No.1 and so many years having elapsed, there is no hospital in existence as yet. The petitioners, on making inquiries, have now learnt that the respondent No.1 has acquired about 6.5 acres of land in Gurgaon, by sale deeds, copies of which have been obtained by the petitioners, for a total consideration of Rs.41,27,971/- (Rupees Forty One Lacs Twenty Seven Thousand Nine Hundred Seventy One only). The said land has been found by the petitioners to be lying unutilized. The selection of the said land is also alleged to have been made without taking into consideration the fact that the said land is land-locked and and further money will have to be spent to make the said land accessible for use as a hospital for animals. Not only this, it is at a distance of 50 km from Delhi where there is a large deployment of equine animals. According to the petitioners, the respondents appear to have purchased the land without taking into consideration the fact that animals are not brought to hospital at far-flung places and a hospital has to be provided near a place frequented by animals.

5. Thus, the grievance of the petitioners is that the respondents have rendered no account to the petitioners, though the petitioner No.1 alone has transferred funds of over Rs.1.8 crore during the period March, 1992 to January, 1997 to the respondent No.1, out of which there is record of only Rs.41,26,971/- having been spent and there is no proper account of the remaining Rs.1.40 crore. It is also alleged by the petitioners that the respondent No.2, though was forwarding to the petitioner No.1 the minutes of the meetings of the trustees of the respondent No.1 and the balance sheets till the year 1997, has stopped sendin