R. Basant, J.

Did the court below go wrong on facts in granting leave and in holding that the suit under S.92 of the C.P.C is maintainable? Should the courts insist invariably that 0.1 R.8 publication is taken out in all suits under S.92 of the C.P.C? Can the Co-trustees be granted leave to institute a suit under S.92 of the C.P.C? Is there any conflict between the decision of the Single Bench in Amrithakumari v. Ramanathan (1998 (2) KLT 305) and the decision of the Division Bench in P.V.Mathew & Ors. v. K.V.Thomas & Ors. (1982 KLT 493 = AIR 1983 Ker.5)? These questions are raised in this Revision Petition.

2. Against the finding on the preliminary issue that the suit under S.92 of the Code of Civil Procedure is maintainable, defendants 1 to 3, 6, 8 and 10 have come to this Court with this C.R.P. The learned District Judge had taken the view that the suit is maintainable and is perfectly justified under S.92 of the Code.

3. Certain crucial facts are not in dispute and I shall advert to them first. The first defendant is a public Trust of charitable nature. The relief’s claimed in the suit do certainly fall within the relief’s enumerated in S. 92 of the Code. There are allegations that there is breach of the stipulations of the trust deed and that directions of the Court is necessary for the proper administration of such Trust.

4. To avoid any possibility of confusion on this aspect I shall extract paragraph 23 of the plaint where the relief is claimed

"23. Hence, it is most respectfully prayed that this Honourable Court be pleased to pass a judgment and decree

(a) declaring that the defendants 2, 3 and 10 are disqualified to hold/act as the office bearers/Trustees as the case may be of the Trust, in the larger interests of the Trustees.

(b) directing the defendants 3 and 10 to deliver all Trust documents and properties in their possession to the Trust or to any person as directed by this Honourable Court.

(c) directing the production of accounts by the defendants 3 and 10 and other enquiries as to the loss created to the Trust and quantify the damages and order recovery from the assets of the tort-feasor trustees.

(d) setting a scheme for the proper and most wholesome administration of the Trust and it constituent institution viz. Vidyodaya School.

(e) directing the removal of defendants 2, 3, 6, 9, and 10 and supplementing the School Management Committee with plaintiffs 1, 2, 3 and 4 and the 4th defendant who stood as sureties for the loans taken for the school.

(f) and such other relief’s are just and necessary in these interest of justice in the facts and circumstances of the case.

5. It will also be apposite straight away to refer to paragraph 9 of the plaint where the crucial allegations are raised about the alleged breach of the Trust and the need for directions for the proper administration of the trust. Paragraph 9 of the plaint reads as follows:-

"9. The defendants 2, 3, and 10 are guilty of grave acts and omissions which have the effect of breach of trust, causing loss to the Trust, its properties, improper and illegal applications of Trust property, mismanagement and maladministration of Trust, making their removal by order of Court, taking penal action for recovery and damages for the loss caused to the Trust, direct delivery of Trust property, direct inquiry into their actions/inactions, resulting in loss to the Trust, ordering the settlement of a scheme etc in the interest of justice."

6. Before the learned District Judge the plaint in the proposed suit was filed. An interim application was filed 'in the proposed suit for grant of leave under S.92. The learned District Judge considered the application for leave which was numbered as LA.349/2000 in the unnumbered suit and granted leave ex parte. Thereafter the suit was numbered. In the suit a written statement was filed by the defendants. Inter alia it was contended that the suit is not maintainable in as much as it does not fall within the purview of S.92 of the Co