IMPORTANT POINT
Section 92 of the CPC permits institution of a suit only after obtaining leave of the court and since the afore cited precedents make it apodictic that such leave can be granted only if the court obtains subjective satisfaction that ingredients of the section are attracted, it would brook no ambiguity that it is only that court, competent to permit institution of the suit, can grant leave for such purpose

ORDER :

The jurisdictional lineaments and interpretational facets of Section 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure ('CPC' for short) have often engaged the close attention of courts, but the singular question posed in these petitions appears to have not been impelled before or answered by this Court, though the Madras High Court has, in one judgment, dealt with it, though not in detail.

2. The question wears a rather simple look: Can the Court of an Additional District Judge grant leave under Section 92 of the CPC to institute a suit against Public Charities, when there is no notification under Section 7(2) of the Kerala Civil Courts Act, 1957 ('Civil Courts Act' for brevity), authorising it to institute such a suit; and whether the District Judge can, nevertheless, make over a petition seeking such leave to the Additional District Judge?

3. This becomes relevant in the face of the contention of the petitioners in these cases, that only the District Judge is competent in law to consider a petition for leave to sue under Section 92 of the CPC-filed before a District Court -and to grant it and not any other, including an Additional District Judge, when no notification under Section 7(2) of the Civil Courts Act has been issued, which alone would make the latter jurisdictionally competent to permit institution of a suit thereafter.

4. At this juncture, I must remind everyone that, in the year 1966, the Government of Kerala had issued a notification bearing No.G.O.(MS)No.384/1966/Home dated 24.10.1966, as per which, the Subordinate Courts in the State are also empowered to dispose of the suits under Section 92 of the CPC. This notification is still in force.

5. I have mentioned about this notification upfront, not because it has any real effect on the issues presented herein -and, as a matter of fact, it would be irrelevant -since the petition for leave and the annexed plaint thereto have been filed by respondents 1 and 2 in all these cases before the District Court and not before the Subordinate Court.

6. The answer to the various legal aspects that I will hereinafter indite are thus only with reference to a petition for leave presented before a District Court, though it certainly may have a bearing even on such petitions filed before the Subordinate Courts in Kerala.

7. That being said, the factual edifice on which the issues herein arise is that the Sree Gurudeva Charitable and Educational Trust ('the Trust' for brevity), one of the petitioners in C.R.P. Nos.177/2020 and 178/2020, which is concededly a Public Trust, has been sought to be sued by respondents 1 and 2 in all these cases stating to be its beneficiaries -on various grounds; for which they sought leave of the court under Section 92 of the CPC.

8. Admittedly, the petition seeking such leave, accompanied by the plaint for the proposed suit, was filed by respondents 1 and 2 before the Principal District Court; but the said court, instead of considering the same, made it over to the Additional District Court for consideration. It appears that the petition was, thereafter, numbered as O.P.(Trust) No. 4/2020 and by order dated 20.01.2020, it was allowed, thus granting leave to respondents 1 and 2 to institute a suit against the Trust. On being aware of this, the petitioners in C.R.P. Nos.177/2020 and 178/2020 moved I.A.Nos.4/2020 and 3/2020 respectively before the same court, seeking that the leave so granted be revoked, leading to a subsequent order dated 19.03.2020, by which the court refused to accede to this and to confirm its earlier order.

9. The petitioners challenge the order dated 19.03.2020 of the Additional District Judge in C.R.P.Nos.177/2020 and 178/2020; while, in O.P.(C) No.1224/2020, they assail the act of making over of the petition seeking leave under Section 92 of the CPC by the District Judge to the Additional District Judge, with a prayer that the learned District Judge be directed to call back the records in O.P. (Trust)No.4/2020 from the Additional District Judge.