A.M. Babu, J.

The order challenged in the appeal was set aside.

The case was remanded for fresh disposal. That judgment is sought to be reviewed.

2. The parties are referred to in this order as they are shown in the memorandum put in to seek review of the judgment.

3. The respondents sought leave of the principal civil court of original jurisdiction to institute a suit against the petitioners to seek reliefs within the purview of Section 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short CPC). The first petitioner is an association of persons registered under Act XII of 1955. Its office bearers are the other petitioners. The respondents are life members of the association. They are at present members of its executive committee. Grant of leave was opposed by the petitioners. They contended that the first petitioner was never a trust. That contention was accepted by the district court. The original petition seeking the leave was dismissed.

4. The respondents had filed two applications before the court below. One was I.A.No.23 of 2017 to amend the original petition. The other was I.A.No.22 of 2017 for a direction to the petitioners to produce documents. The amendment was sought to have better pleadings to contend that the first petitioner was a trust of the nature specified in Section 92 (1) of CPC. It was alleged that the documents referred to in I.A.No.22 of 2017 would show the first petitioner to be such a trust. The Additional District Judge did not consider and decide those applications under the impression that no interlocutory application could be considered before the grant of leave. But that was not the law. We clarified it in our judgment. We directed the court below to consider and decide the aforesaid applications before the disposal of the original petition. The petitioners seem to have no grievance against the remand of the case and against the direction to dispose of the two interlocutory applications before the disposal of the original petition.

5. The grievance of the petitioners is against our findings that the respondents have a prima facie case and that they have a cause of action. The petitioners are aggrieved since we said that the remand was not an open remand. Our aforesaid findings are sought to be reviewed. It is requested either to review those findings or to direct the district court to consider the original petition untrammelled by the observations in paragraphs 13 and 16 of the judgment. In short, what the petitioners want is to make the remand an open remand.

6. Heard the learned senior counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel for the respondents.

7. We said at paragraph 12 of the judgment that the original petition contained serious allegations against the petitioners herein. We also said that those allegations were not seriously denied in the statements of objections filed by them. We added that only two of the allegations were specifically met in the statements of objections. Mismanagement, misconduct and misappropriation were the allegations. We have referred to those allegations in paragraphs 11 to 15 of the judgment. Those allegations were indeed serious allegations. Those allegations were not seriously met in the statements of objections filed by petitioners 1, 2 and 4 jointly and the third petitioner separately. We had to state that fact in the judgment and therefore we stated it. We had to state it since we were considering whether the respondents had a cause of action and a prima facie case to prosecute the original petition.

8. We wrote the above paragraph since the learned senior counsel for the petitioners argued as if the allegations in the original petition were sufficiently met in the statements of objections. A copy of the statement of objections filed by petitioners 1, 2 and 4 was therefore again read in open court. That reading only confirmed what we stated in the judgment. The memorandum filed by the petitioners to seek review of the judgment would vouch our words in the judgm