THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN, J.

1. This appeal is against an order by which the court below has held that a suit instituted with leave under Section 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure, CPC, for short, is not maintainable and resultantly, the petition filed invoking Section 92 CPC was dismissed.

2. We have heard the learned senior counsel appearing for the appellants, who are the petitioners before the court below and the learned counsel appearing for the contesting respondents.

3. The court below has held that proceedings initiated by the appellants before the court below seeking leave under Section 92 CPC are, essentially, ones which are aimed at vindicating private rights and the substance of the litigation is one which cannot be treated as one falling within the enumerated clauses of Section 92 CPC. The court below drew support from the decision of the Honourable Supreme Court of India in Vidyodaya Trust vs. Mohan Prasad, 2008 (2) KLT 68 (SC).

4. We have perused the entire materials on record and the contents of the application under Section 92 CPC. First respondent in the application is Bishop Abraham Memorial Trust Association. Admittedly, that is a society registered under the provisions of the Travancore Cochin Literary Scientific and Charitable Societies Registration Act, 1955, the Act, for short. The substance of the contentions of the petitioners is that Bishop Abraham Memorial College, BAM College, for short, is an institution which came into being in the form of a trust inasmuch as the activity for establishing that institution was initiated by a group of people coming together much before the first respondent was registered under the Act in 1965 and that pursuant to public contributions made, the trust was constituted and it was thereafter that the first respondent registered society came into being. It, therefore, sued seeking a declaration that the property scheduled to the original petition belonged to the trust and also sought for framing up of a scheme alleging mismanagement against those in office.

5. Among the materials, we see that there are indications that even before the registration of the society under the Act, activities had gone ahead for purchase of property and application was made to the University of Travancore for permission to establish a college. Be that as it may, the sweep of materials and sequence of different litigations tend to show that at least after 1964, for all intents and purposes, the first respondent BAM Trust Association was treated as an institution which is in control and governance of the BAM College.

6. Before proceeding further, we may immediately notice that insofar as the said Association is concerned, there was a litigation under the provisions of the Act touching its bye-laws. That led to appellate proceedings before this Court and modification of bye- laws. Thereafter, a suit was proposed under Section 92 CPC. That led to appellate proceedings before this Court which also concluded by saying that the proceedings are ill constituted, and the proper remedy, if at all, is not under Section 92 CPC. The first petitioner, who is the first appellant herein, was a party to that suit. In the meanwhile, it appears that couple of persons filed a suit before the Munsiff's Court seeking rights in relation to the property as against the Association. The appellants, who are before us, joined the said suit as defendants to support the plaintiffs therein. The suit underwent a complete trial leading to its dismissal. However, it appears that the plaintiffs therein carried an appeal and sought and obtained leave from the appellate court to withdraw the suit. We are told by the learned counsel appearing for the contesting respondents that such leave was sought and obtained without publication of notice under Order I Rule 8 of the CPC, though the suit before the Munsiff's Court was instituted with such notice under Order I Rule 8. We are also told that an original petition is pending