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 alle