M. Chockalingam, J.

This appeal challenges an order of the learned Single Judge of this Court made in Application No.938 of 2003 seeking revocation of the leave originally granted in Application No.2918/2002 in C.S.No.579 of 2002.

2.The suit was filed by the plaintiffs for,

(a) framing a scheme for the proper administration of the first defendant trust by appointing two more persons who are office-bearers of the first plaintiff association to be trustees of the first defendants trust along with the existing trustees.

(b) a direction to the trustees of the first defendant trust to furnish copies of the trust deeds and render true and proper account relating to the trust in so far as it relates to the corpus fund and investment made and the interest received every year and the amount reimbursed towards medical expenses and the total number of persons to whom such reimbursement has been made and also give true account/particulars relating to the amount given towards medical, educational assistance of all the beneficiaries including the wards of the employees with particulars thereof upto 33. 2002 and

(c) a declaration that a portion of the income to be fixed by this Court after looking into the accounts from the trust fund to be paid towards the pension payable to the retired employees in addition to the existing meagre pension paid to the employees.

3. While doing so, an application was filed in Application No.2918 of 2002 under Sec.92 of the Code of Civil Procedure seeking the leave of the Court. On being granted, the suit was taken on file in C.S.No.579 of 2002. For revoking the leave so granted, the first defendant filed Application No.938 of 2003. On enquiry, the learned Single Judge allowed the application for revocation of the leave already granted and also dismissed the application wherein leave was originally granted.

.4. Advancing arguments on behalf of the appellants, the learned Counsel Mr.N.G.R.Prasad would submit that the original trust deed though asked for, was not made available to the plaintiffs, and hence, they were not in a position to produce the same; that however, the trust deed was produced by the first defendant, and hence the adverse inference drawn by the learned Single Judge on the non-production of the trust deed was not warranted; that the very nomenclature of the trust deed i.e., Ponds Employees Welfare Trust, would indicate that the beneficiaries were also included; that it was also for the benefit of the society; that under the circumstances, it was not correct to urge or hold that it would be only for the benefit of the employees in service and not retired; that the expression beneficiaries referred to three categories of employees namely (a) employees on the date of the trust deed; (b) employees who would come in employment after the date of the document; and (c) employees who have been in continuous service of the company upto the date not earlier than two years from the date of the document and their respective spouses, children (natural or adopted) and dependents; that the trust deed took into the last category of employees namely retired employees, their spouses, children and dependents, and hence it is not correct to state that as per the definition of "trust" employees and beneficiaries, it was only those persons who were in employment of the company alone and they would be protected under the trust in question and not an outsider; that the beneficiaries were not only the employees of the company, but also the retired employees, their spouses and their dependents; that to construe a public trust, it was not necessary that a public at large should be the beneficiaries and it could be confined to certain sections of public i.e., persons who are fluctuating body; that it is not correct to state that because the trust was confined to the staff of the company, past and present and their dependents, that would not amount to public trust; that the employees past and present, their sp