Article 226 can be invoked only if leave is refused.

.1. This revision is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India by the proposed defendants in a suit which is proposed to be filed by the respondents herein under Section 92(1) of the Code of Civil Procedure. The respondents herein obtained leave for the institution of the suit under Section 92(1) of the Code of Civil Procedure against the petitioner.

2. I do not want to give a detailed history of the litigation except for the statement that the respondents herein alleged various acts of mismanagement of the public trust.

3. The petitioners herein opposed the grant of consent and the main reason for the same is that there is already a suit pending before the Court and therefore a second suit for the very same relief is unnecessary. It is also contended that in an earlier suit, the plaintiffs therein moved for some interim relief and the same was not granted as sought for by them and the proposed suit is only an another attempt to get the very same relief by filing a separate suit.

4. It is the further case that the proposed suit to be filed is not bona fide and intended only to harass the public trust. It is also said that there is no proper application of mind while passing the impugned order and it is also stated that the various objections raised by the petitioner were not taken into consideration by the Courts below. According to the Senior counsel, it is fit case to invoke Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

5. In substance, the contention is that the proposed suit, if allowed to be filed, it would amount to abuse of Court. The Court should not lend it support for institution of the same.

6. When the matter came for admission, I ordered notice of motion and subsequent proceedings pursuant to the order of sanction was also stayed. On receipt of notice, the respondents entered appearance and sought for an earlier disposal of the revision.

.7. Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the revision itself is not maintainable. It is also contended by the counsel that there is no decision of a Court affecting the rights of the petitioners. It is also submitted that the petitioner cannot contend that no person can file a suit against them and if grounds are made out for granting leave, the petitioners can very well defend a suit. The discretion at the time of granting leave, exercised by the Court is purely administrative and it is neither judicial nor quasi judicial decision. A condition precedent for the institution of the suit is complied with and it is the only effect of granting leave. Mere inconvenience in defending a suit by itself is not a ground for interference either under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure or under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The impugned order, though is challenged invoking Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the same is not exercise of judicial power nor it is quasi judicial one. In either way, the revision is not maintainable. The petitioners cannot be stated to be aggrieved persons.

8. As against the said contentions, learned senior counsel submitted that that is already the duty of the Court to prevent an abuse of process of Court. If there is already a suit pending for the Same relief, the second suit is not maintainable. A suit under Section 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure is a representative suit and therefore the respondents herein can get themselves impleaded in the suit and put forward the contentions in the suit which is already pending.

9. It is submitted that if the arguments of the respondents are accepted the very purpose of Section 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure will be defeated. If a litigation could be filed against the trust, the trust will have no time to manage its own affairs, but only to wait at the corners of the Court. The pendency of the earlier suit is a material consideration to consider whether leave should be granted or not. If the Court, while granting leave has not applied its mind in r