The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation and application of Section 92 C.P.C, Order 7 Rule 11 and Section 151 of C.P.C in the context of revoking permission and rejecting the plaint.

1. This Revision has been filed against the fair and decretal order passed by the by the Principal District Court, Villupuram in I.A. No. 279 of 2008 in O.S. No. 2 of 2008 dated 18.4.2009.

2. The petitioners are the plaintiffs in O.S. No. 2 of 2008 on the file of the Principal District Court, Villupuram. The suit was filed against the respondents under Section 92 C.P.C. praying the Court to frame a Scheme for the Management and Administration of the suit temple and its property. Originally, I.A. No. 20 of 2008 was filed with the suit under Section 92 C.P.C for leave to institute the suit, on 24.1.2008 and the said petition was allowed by grant of leave to institute the suit. The respondents/defendants filed an application in I.A. No. 279 of 2008 under Section 92 read with Order 7 Rule 11 and Section 151 of C.P.C. In this petition, the respondents have prayed for two reliefs, namely, to revoke the permission granted in I.A. No. 20 of 2008 and also to reject the

3 The following are the grounds raised in the affidavit filed by the respondents:

“ 1. The respondents/defendants are not personally interested in the management and the administration of the temple and their interest is not real and substantive and that there is neither necessity nor any basis for framing a scheme as admittedly we have been managing the temple for the past four generations and for well over a decade and as such it is outside the scope of Section 92 C.P.C.

2. The suit has been filed only to vindicate their personal rights and interest as their attempts to exercise the powers emanating under the trust namely “ Baghavan Sri Appandainathar (Parsuvanathar) Jinalaya Management Trust ” had been frustrated and that we had filed the suit in O.A. No. 133 of 2007 on the file of Principal Sub Judge, Villupuram for injunction restraining them from interfering with the management of the temple.

3. Above all, this Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit under Section 92 of the C.P.C. And it is only a designated Court by the Government of Tamilnadu alone (i.e. the Principal Sub Judge, Villupuram) is entitled to entertain the suit. Hence, this Court is not competent to entertain the suit and grant leave as the jurisdiction of the Court is ousted by the notification of the State Government vesting with the Principal Sub Judge of that locality having jurisdiction over the matter.

4. The respondents have failed to array and implead the temple as a party to the suit. ”

The following are the allegations contained in the counter filed by the present petitioners:

“ 1. The petition filed by the petitioners is most frivolous. The application as framed is not maintainable. The suit is for settling a Scheme for management and administrative of suit temple and its properties. It is a public temple where the Jain community people, as of right, are entitled to offer worship. The defendants who are petitioners herein took upon themselves the management of temple and have not shown any interest in keeping the temple in good disrepair. They had their eyes only on the “ Hundial ”collection. Representation by the worshippers fell into deaf ears. The respondent sets out in detail the various irregularities committed by the petitioners in paragraph 6 of the plaint. They crave the leave of the Court to refer to the same as part and parcel of this counter. Finding that petitioners are not likely to mend themselves, the suit is filed in a representative capacity on behalf of the Jain community people living in Villupuram Taluk, Tindivanam, Gingee and Vanthavasi. For granting leave to sue under Section 92 , the Court has to satisfy prima facie from the allegations made in the plaint whether leave is to be granted or not and after considering the allegations and the documents filed along with the plaint, the Court has granted the leave. The matter ends there. If the petitioners have a defence, it is open to them to agitate and contest the matter. This is not the stage to decide the