P.R. Raman, J.

Defendants are the petitioners. The suit O.S.35/2002 was instituted by the respondent herein as plaintiff for a permanent prohibitory injunction against defendants 2 to 9 or anybody else claiming under them from interfering with the plaintiffs rights to discharge the duties of parish priest of the first defendant church including conducting Holy Mass and discharging all other religious functions of the said Church and all its institutions, in pursuance of the memorandum of understanding dated 23.1.1999 and in pursuance of Kalpana No. 19 of 2002 dated 17.8.2002 of Metropolitan of Kandanadu Diocese East appointing the plaintiff as Vicar of 1st defendant church.

2. The plaintiff claimed to be the Assistant Vicar of the first defendant church. According to the plaint allegations, at the time Of his appointment, the Vicar of the church was one Rev. Fr. Mary Das Stephen, that there was some dispute regarding the latters continuance as Vicar which eventually led to a law and order situation, that the RDO interfered and mediation talks were held and a Memorandum of understanding was reached whereby the plaintiff was authorized to discharge all the religious functions and duties of the parish priest, that the dispute regarding appoint of the Vicar was to be decided in appropriate proceedings and until such time, Rev. Fr. Mary Das Stephen and Rev. Fr. Rijo were kept out of the church, that the plaintiff was being discharging all the spiritual matters of the church without any hindrance from others, that on 23.4.2000 defendants 2, 3, 5, 7 and another obstructed the Holy Mass which led to the filing of the suit that the suit was instituted under O.I R.8 C.P.C. since and according to the plaintiff numerous persons may be interested in the subject matter of the suit and it was not possible to make all of them as parties. .

3. The defendants raised a contention that the suit is not maintainable without obtaining leave under S.92 of the Code of Civil Procedure and according to them, the first defendant is a public trust created for public purpose of-religious and charitable nature and since the plaintiff did not comply with the provisions of S.92 CPC and O.I R.8 C.P.C., the suit is not legally maintainable. The maintainability of the suit was decided by the 1st Additional District Court or a preliminary issue by the impugned order dated 18th February, 2002 where under it was held that suit is not liable to be dismissed as not maintainable for want of sanction under S.92 of the Code of Civil Procedure and that the suit is not hit by S.92 CPC. It is challenging the said decision that the present Civil Revision, Petition is filed.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners Sri. Ramakumar reiterated the contention as raised by the defendants in the Court below. He also contended that the Court below went wrong in holding that the suit is not hit by S.92 CPC. According to him, the Court below failed to consider the decision of the Supreme Court in Charan Singh v. Darshan Singh, AIR 1975 SC 371, and to consider that the relief sought for in the plaint is a kin to or for the same nature as of the relief mentioned in Cl.(g) of sub-s.1 of S.92 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

5. Before considering the rival submissions made by the parties, it will be useful to refer to S.92(1) of the Code of Civil Procedure which inter alia provides as follows:

Public Charities.-- (1) In the case of any alleged breach of any express or constructive trust created for public purposes of a charitable or religious nature, or where the direction of the Court is deemed necessary for the administration of any such trust, the Advocate General, or two or more persons having an interest in the trust and having obtained the leave of the Court, may institute a suit, whether contentious or not, in the principal Civil Court of original jurisdiction or in any other Court empowered in that behalf by the State Government within the local limits of whose jurisdiction th