The main legal point established in the judgment is that the court has the jurisdiction to entertain an application for the appointment of a receiver in relation to a Trust, even when the question of leave under S.92 remains undecided. The court emphasized the need for a prompt decision on the question of leave due to the protracted course of the proceedings.

1. A question of general importance arises in the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal. It relates to the power of a court to appoint a receiver, in proceedings in relation to a Trust under S.92 of the Civil Procedure Code, at a stage before leave to institute the suit is granted.

2. The court below declined to consider a Receiving application at such a stage, as it felt that it had no jurisdiction to deal with such a prayer at a stage before permission is granted by the court and before the proceedings assumed the form of a regular suit. In taking that view, the court below felt bound by the observations of this Court in the decision reported in Achuthan Pillai v. Mohanan Unnithan, 1979 KLT. Short Notes 53 (Case No. 116). The correctness of the view taken by the court below is challenged in the appeal.

3. The skeletal facts necessary for the determination of this legal issue are as follows: The Original Petition, O.P. No. 98 of 1979 was filed seeking leave under S.92 CPC., for instituting a suit against the counter-petitioners, of whom the first is a public Trust of a religious nature. Counter petitioners 2 to 6 are the present office bearers of the Trust It was alleged that the office bearers, except counter-petitioner No.6 were not managing the Trust properly and that they were guilty of condemnable conduct in relation to the affairs of the Trust.

4. Notice on the petition bad been ordered on 27-7-1979. Respondents Nos.1 to 6 appeared through counsel and the case was thereafter posted to 21-8-1979. Requests for time for filing the objections appear to have been granted on various occasions, till ultimately they were filed on 10-10-1979. For over one year, thereafter, the application had been drifting, without any effective action thereon. On 27-4-1980, it was represented that evidence was required and the case was adjourned for that purpose. However, no evidence was attempted by either side Ultimately on 5-2-1982, the court recorded that there was no evidence for both sides.

5. In the meanwhile the application for the appointment of a receiver was filed. It was heard ultimately on 20-2-1982. By order dated 26-2-1982 that application was dismissed. The Revision Petition was filed against the above order. The records appear to have been transmitted to this Court shortly thereafter. The resultant situation is that no final orders have been passed so far on the main petition.

6. S.92 of the CPC under which leave has been sought, for the institution of a suit against the Trust, opens with the following wording:

"92. 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 the whole or any part of the subject-matter of the trust is situate, to obtain a decree

(emphasis supplied)

(The matters on which decree could be obtained are not material for the purpose of this case and are therefore omitted.) It has been held that while deciding the question whether leave should be granted or not, it is not obligatory that the respondent should be notified about the same or beard in the matter It is optional for the court, however, to hear the respondents also before it decides whether leave should be granted or not.

7. The interlocutory application which has been filed in the case even before the question relating to the grant of leave remained undecided, is an application for the appointment of a receiver filed under 0.40 R.1 of the C.P.C. In as much as the wording of the statutory provision under which this interl