1. This revision is in challenge of order dated August 24, 2007 on I.A.No.3208 of 2007 in an unnumbered suit granting leave to respondent Nos.1 to 3 to sue petitioners and respondent Nos.4 to 13 under Section 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short, "the Code"). Learned counsel for petitioners raised the following points for a decision:

i. Leave was not applied for in the form of an original petition but in the form of an interlocutory application and hence the application is not maintainable.

ii. Affidavit in support of the application for leave does not contain requisite particulars and hence leave ought not have been granted.

iii. On the materials on record, court below was not correct in granting leave to respondent Nos.1 to 3.

2. Short facts necessary for a decision of the above points are: Petitioner No.1, it is not disputed is a parish church established centuries ago at Kolenchery. It is a public trust of a religious nature. Respondent Nos.1 to 3 are parishioners and claimed to have a direct interest in that church. They sought reliefs in the nature of a declaration that petitioner No.1/defendant No.1 (church) and its assets including educational institutions are liable to be administered only in accordance with the terms of Udamapady dated 13.12.1088 ME, alternatively to settle a scheme for administration of petitioner No.1, its assets and institutions, a direction to conduct election to the managing committee of petitioner No.1 and the governing body of its institutions and for other reliefs. Respondent Nos.1 to 3 sought leave of the court under Section 92 of the Code by filing an application supported by affidavit in the suit itself. The suit was not numbered but the application for leave was numbered as I.A.No. 3208 of 2007. In the affidavit in support of the application it is stated that petitioner No.1 is a public trust of religious nature and there is no proper administration of its assets and affairs, administration is to be made in accordance with terms and conditions of Udampady dated 13.12.1088 ME., no election has been conducted for the last several years and except respondent Nos.4 to 9/defendant Nos.4 to who were in the elected committee all others in that committee have left their terrestrial abode and that in such circumstances intervention of the court is required. It is stated in the affidavit that further details necessitating filing of the suit for reliefs claimed are narrated in the plaint which may be read as part of the affidavit. Learned Additional District Judge considered the claim of respondent Nos.1 to 3 and the objection raised by petitioners and vide the impugned order granted leave to respondent Nos.1 to 3 to institute the suit. That order is under challenge in this revision petition. Learned counsel for petitioners placing reliance on the decision in Musaliyarakath Abdul Azeez v. Liwa Educational and Charitable Society, Kottappuram (2010 (3) KLT 158) has contended that application for leave is not to be filed in the suit since grant of leave is to precede institution of the suit and hence the application should have been in the form of an original petition as held by this Court. Learned counsel contends that in the present case leave has been applied for and obtained on an interlocutory application as if it is an application filed in a pending suit and hence the application is not maintainable. Further contention is that for the purpose of granting of leave only the averments in the application are to be looked into, averments made in the affidavit in support of I.A.No.3208 of 2007 are not sufficient to grant leave under Section 92 of the Code and in the circumstances averments in the plaint should not have been looked into. Learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 3 contend that what is required to be considered is the substance of the averments and not the form in which the request is made and that there is no law which prohibited filing of an Interlocutory application se