Whether revision to High Court against the order can lie.

This Revision is filed by the respondents 1 to 4 and 7 in I.A. No. 156 of 1989 in unnumbered O.S. of 1989. The said I.A. was filed by the respondents herein, seeking permission to institute the suit under Section 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

2. The reliefs prayed for in the proposed suit are: (1) For permission to the plaintiffs to institute and prosecute the suit in a representative capacity; (2) that a scheme to framed for proper management of the properties and the affairs of the plaintiffs community; (3) for a direction to the defendants to deliver possession of the suit property to the plaintiffs' community represented by its office bearers appointed under the Scheme or represented by the plaintiffs themselves; (4) for a direction to the defendants 1 to 3 to render a true and correct account of their management of the properties and affairs of the plaintiffs' community, to the community represented by its office bearers appointed under a Scheme or represented by the plaintiffs; and (5) for other consequential reliefs.

3. In the proposed suit to be filed, the plaintiffs have sought for permission under Section 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which is a condition precedent for instituting the suit. The petitioners herein objected to the same.

4. By the impugned Order, the Court below allowed the Application. The Revision is filed under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, against the said Order.

5. Even though the Revision was numbered, and the respondents have entered appearance, when the Revision came up for final arguments, the Maintainability of the Revision under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure was doubted, and arguments were heard regarding the same.

6. A Revision is maintainable to this Court only against any case which is decided by a Court Subordinate to this Court, against which no Appeal lies. Further, the Order of the Court must also be of the nature mentioned in sub-clauses (a), (b) and (c) of clause (1) of that Section. A reading of that Section makes it clear that, to exercise the power under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the Court subordinate to it must be exercising the judicial power and it must be in respect of a case decided. There must be a decision, affecting rights of parties.

7. The question to be decided is, whether the grant of leave by the Court below will come under any of the provisions of Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

8. Originally, under Section 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the leave has to be given by the Advocate-General. As per Section 92, C.P.C., the Advocate-General himself may file a suit or be may grant permission to two or in ore persons having interest in the Trust, to institute a suit. In the place of 'Advocate-General', by virtue of Amendment in 1976, 'Leave of the Court' is substituted. The function of the Advocate-General; at the time of granting leave. is neither judicial nor quasi judicial, as has been held in so many cases. It is that function of the Advocate-General which is now given to Court by virtue of the Amendment.

9. In 1966 AIR(SC) 878, 1966 (2) SCR 151, 1955 AIR(All) 372 : 1966 (1) SCR 151 (Madappa v. Mahathadevaru), their Lordships held: -

"The main purpose of Section 92(1) is to give protection to public trusts of a charitable or religious nature from being subjected to harassment by suits being filed against them. That is why it provides that suits under that Section can only be filed either by the Advocate General or two or more persons having an interest in the trust with the consent in writing of the Advocate-General. The objection is that before the Advocate General files a suit or gives his consent for filing a suit, he would satisfy himself that there is a prima facie case either of breach of trust or of the necessity for obtaining directions of the Court."

Their Lorships of the Apex Court decided the object of Section 92(1), C.P.C., and the reason why the Advocate-General's permission is to be g