1. The Appellants have filed the present appeal being RFA(OS) No. 44 of 2008 under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter to be referred as CPC) against the judgment and order dated 3rd July, 2008, by virtue of which the plaint filed by the Appellants has been rejected under Order VII Rule 11 Clauses (a) and (d) of the CPC.

.2. It is pertinent to mention that the Appellants had filed the present suit praying for the following reliefs:- 1A. pass a decree of declaration declaring that no amalgamation of EHIRC- Delhi took place with EHIRC Chandigarh. a) in the alternative, pass a decree of

.declaration declaring the amalgamation of EHIRC-Delhi with EHIRC-Chandigarh as non-est, void and bad in law in view of the provisions contained in the Societies Registration Act, 1860; b) pass a decree of declaration thereby declaring the conversion of EHIRC- Chandigarh (post amalgamation) into a Limited Company under the Companies Act, 1956, as being void and contrary to law; c) pass a decree of permanent injunction in favour of the Plaintiffs and against the Defendant No. 1, injuncting its officers, agents and employees from transferring, alienating or otherwise creating any third party rights or interest with respect to the shares held by the Defendant No. 1 in Defendant No. 2; d) pass a decree of permanent injunction in favour of the Plaintiffs and against the Defendant No. 2, its officers, agents and employees from registering any transfer of shares effected by the Defendant No. 1; e) pass a decree of mandatory injunction directing the restoration of the assets, properties and facilities of the Second Defendant, and its ownership, management and control and its character and structure to its original status of a public charitable institution, dedicated wholly and exclusively to public service; f) award costs of the suit in favour of the Plaintiffs and against the Defendants; g) pass such further order or directions as this Honble Court may deem fit and proper on the facts of the present suit.

.3. The learned Single Judge by the impugned order has dismissed the suit filed by the Appellants on the grounds that firstly, mandatory leave under Section 92 of CPC had not been obtained by the Appellants prior to the institution of the suit and secondly, no relief personal to the Plaintiffs had been claimed in the plaint. The reasoning of the learned Single Judge in rejecting the plaint is reproduced hereinbelow:- 17. The first thing that has to be considered in this case is whether the suit is of the kind as would fall within the four corners of Section 92, CPC. It is apparent that before Section 92, CPC is attracted, there must be (1) as alleged breach of trust; (2) the trust may be express or constructive; (3) the trust, however, must have been created for public purposes (of a charitable or religious nature); and (4) the suit must be instituted so as to obtain a decree of the nature indicated in clauses (a) to (h) of sub-Section (1) of Section 92, CPC. It has to be seen as to whether the present case satisfies these tests. In the earlier part of this judgment, the averments made in the plaint have been referred to in detail and they clearly indicated that the plaintiffs have alleged breach of trust. It is also clear that the plaintiffs have alleged that EHIRC-Delhi was constituted for public purposes of a charitable nature. The reliefs that have been sought all pertain to re-establishing the public charitable nature of the assets of EHIRCL (Defendant No.2), owned in major share by Escorts Limited (Defendant No.1). Such reliefs may be covered under clause (c) and definitely under clause (h) of sub-Section 1 of Section 92, CPC. In my view, therefore, the plaintiffs were required to have obtained the leave of the court before instituting the present suit. As noted in the decisions referred to by the learned counsel for the defendant No.1, the requirement of obtaining leave of the court is not a mere formality, b