1. Revision petitioners challenge the order of the Second Additional District Judge, Trivandrum in OP (Trust) 116 of 1984. Respondents 1 to 3 filed the OP under S.92 of the CPC for setting up a scheme for management of Swayam Prakash Ashramam, Kulathoor, temple and its properties. The petition was allowed and permission was granted for filing the suit.

2. Revision petitioners contended that the petition is not maintainable as the plaint was not filed along with it. They relied on Mathew v. Thomas (1982 KLT 493) and urged that the failure to produce the plaint is fatal to the petition under S.92 of the CPC In the above decision there is an observation that along with the petition for leave the plaintiff should produce in the court the plaint for the court's perusal to enable it to pass proper order under S.92(1) CPC. In that case this Court considered whether a court can pass interim orders in a suit before granting leave under S.92. As that was the only matter considered the observation is merely obiter dicta.

3. The petition was filed on 5-7-1984 and the plaint was filed on 1-8-1984 The impugned order was passed on 14-1-1986. Thus when the impugned order was passed a cop