Court has jurisdiction to grant leave to sue.

P. Sathasivam, J.

The above Original Side Appeals have been filed against common order dated 24-2-2005 made in Application Nos.1223/2004; 1224/2004; 779/2004; and 780/2004 respectively in C.S.No.160/2004 on the file of Single Judge of this Court. By the said order, the learned Single Judge held that Leave under Section 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure was properly granted in favour of the plaintiffs to file a suit in respect of affairs of Mazdoor Welfare Trust on the file of Original Side of this Court and also confirmed the Leave granted under Clause 12 of the Letters Patent. He also dismissed the Applications to revoke the leave granted.

2. Heard Mr. T.V. Ramanujam, learned senior counsel for the appellants; Mr. R. Krishnamoorthy, learned senior counsel for respondents 1 to 3; M. Balasubramanian, learned counsel for fifth respondent; and Mr. R. Krishnasamy, learned senior counsel for sixth respondent.

3. The Southern Railway Mazdoor Union represented through its General Secretary N. Kanniah and two others namely A. Rajah Sridhar and P. Kumaresan, who are President and Assistant General Secretary of the first plaintiff Union filed Civil Suit viz., C.S.No. 160 of 2004 against Mazdoor Welfare Trust and five others praying for removal of defendants 2 to 5 from the Office of Managing Trustee and Trustees of the first defendant viz., Mazdoor Welfare Trust to frame a Scheme for the proper administration of the first defendant Trust and its College viz., 6th defendant College with due participation among the members of the plaintiff Union; to grant a permanent injunction restraining 2nd to 5th defendants, their men, agent etc., from interfering with the management of the first defendant Trust; and direct the defendants 2 to 5 to render accounts from February, 2001 of the first defendant Trust and the 6th defendant College. In Application No. 779/2004 they obtained leave under Section 92 C.P.C., in respect of first respondent Trust and also another leave under Clause 12 of Letters Patent in Application No. 780/2004. Application Nos. 1223 and 1224/2004 were filed by the Trust and another Trustee by name N.V. Devi for revocation of the leave. The learned Single Judge on consideration of plaint averments, details furnished in the affidavit filed in support of the Application for grant of leave, the statements made in the counter affidavit and the arguments of both sides, and after finding that the plaintiffs have established the ingredients under Section 92 C.P.C., upheld the grant of leave and dismissed the other petitions; hence the above Original Side Appeals by the Trust and one of the Managing Trustee- N.V. Devi.

4. (i) Mr. T.V. Ramanujam, learned senior counsel for the appellants, would contend that inasmuch as the plaint does not contain necessary details to show how this Court has jurisdiction, in the absence of Schedule of properties, the learned Judge ought to have revoked the leave granted under Section 92 C.P.C. He also submitted that though the plaintiffs referred to bank accounts, no details have been furnished; hence the order of the learned Judge is liable to be set aside. He further contended that there is no balance of convenience and there is no bona fide in the relief sought for in the plaint; hence the learned Judge ought to have revoked the leave granted under Section 92 C.P.C.

(ii) On the other hand, Mr. R. Krishnasamy as well as Mr. R. Krishnamurthy, learned senior counsel appearing for the contesting respondents, would submit that there are sufficient materials in the plaint which satisfied the ingredients under Section 92 C.P.C. They also contended that the entire contributions made to the Trust were given accounted in a bank at Madras, the registered office of the Trust is only at Madras and inasmuch as two trustees have joined together and laid a suit for removal of defendants 2 to 5, since their activities are against the interest of the Trust, the suit as framed and laid before the Original Side o