1. Legality and regularity of the order dated 17.02.2010 on I.A. No.2452 of 2009 in O.S. No.184 of 2009 of the court of learned Sub Judge, Manjeri refusing to revoke leave granted to respondent Nos.1 and 2 to institute the suit under Section 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short, "the Code") is under challenge in this Civil Revision Petition. Respondent No.1 is described as an Educational and Charitable Society (for short, "the Trust") represented by its Treasurer and Member in his individual capacity and as its duly authorised representative. Respondent No.2 is said to be a Member of that Trust. Respondent Nos.1 and 2 presented the plaint in the court of learned Sub Judge, Manjeri on 13.08.2009 along with I.A.No.1645 of 2009 seeking leave under Sec.92 of the Code. Learned Sub Judge ordered to number the suit tentatively and to issue summons to the petitioners and respondent No.3/defendant Nos.1 to 3. On 20.10.2009 respondent Nos.1 and 2 pointed out that no formal leave was granted to institute the suit. Learned Sub Judge amended the order dated 13.08.2009 (numbering the suit tentatively) invoking power under Section 152 of the Code and stated that the word "granted" omitted to be stated in the order dated 13.08.2009 is incorporated after the word "tentatively". Learned Sub Judge directed that since no application was filed by petitioners or respondent No.3 to revoke the leave granted, I.A. No.1645 of 2009 is closed. Petitioners filed I.A. No.2452 of 2009 on 31.11.2009 to revoke the leave granted. Learned Sub Judge dismissed I.A.No.2452 of 2009 vide impugned order dated 17.02.2010. It is contended by petitioners that order dated 13.08.2009 as amended on 20.10.2009 granting leave to respondent Nos.1 and 2 to institute the suit is illegal and irregular. According to the petitioners suit is not properly instituted by two persons in a representative capacity as required under Sec.92 of the Code. Yet another contention is that on the averments made in the affidavit in support of I.A. No.1645 of 2009 and the plaint, suit did not come within the mischief of Sec. 92 of the Code. At any rate procedure adopted by the learned Sub Judge in receiving the plaint and numbering the same without granting leave are illegal. Respondent Nos.1 and 2 supported the order dated 17.10.2009 declining to revoke leave granted.

2. It is necessary to refer to the facts of the case in short. Reliefs sought for in the plaint are a declaration that suit property is a Public Charitable Trust property and a consequential injunction to restrain petitioners and respondent No.3 from reducing all or any of the suit property into their unlawful possession and restrain petitioners from alienating or inducting third parties into the suit property. In paragraph 3 of the plaint it is stated that suit property was transferred to the Trust (respondent No.1) as per assignment deed dated 10.4.2000 for the benefit of the Trust which is founded and constituted as a Public Charitable Trust for maintaining orphans, establishing and running of schools, imparting education to the backward communities and for such other charitable purposes. In paragraph 4 it is stated that by virtue of execution and registration of the document, a public charitable trust came into existence and that (respondent No.1) is in reality and in substance a Public Charitable Trust in existence from the year 2000 onwards. Paragraph 5 states that as is manifest from a reference to the document that while there is no provision empowering any of members to alienate property (of the Trust) there is an express provision that acquisition of property (by the Trust) has to be in the joint names of its Chairman and Treasurer and hence in the absence of any other express provision transfer of the property (of the Trust) also is to be made by Chairman and Treasurer jointly and at the worst by the office bearers of the Trust. The affairs of the Trust is to be done pursuant to decision of its working c