1. Defendants in O.S.No.15 of 2011 on the file of the II Additional District Judge, Pondicherry are the revision petitioners.

2. Respondents filed the suit under section 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure praying for removal of the present Trustees viz., revision petitioners 2 to 6, appointing new trustees who have firm faith in the philosophy of Sri Aurobindo and the Mother, settling a scheme for the administration of Sri Aurobindo Ashram Trust, for formulating a court supervised process to be instituted to look into inter alia, to take steps to ensure withdrawal of the book and to take systemic corrective steps to ensure that such blatant violation of the trust's objectives do not repeat themselves. They also filed I.A.No.474 of 2010 to seek leave of the court to institute the suit and after hearing the revision petitioners herein, an order was passed in I.A.No.474 of 2010 granting the leave and the same was challenged in C.R.P. PD No.949 of 2011 before this court and this court dismissed the revision holding that the grant of leave by filing the suit is an administrative act against which no revision will lie and also observed that the revision petitioners can file an application for revoking the leave granted in I.A.No.474 of 2010 on the basis of acceptable documents and materials. Thereafter, the suit filed by the respondents was numbered as O.S.15 of 2011 and in that suit, the revision petitioners filed I.A.No.494 of 2011 to revoke the leave and that application was dismissed and aggrieved by the same, this revision is filed.

3. Mr.Sriram Panchu, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the revision petitioners submitted that the suit was filed with the intention to vindicate the personal rights of the plaintiffs/respondents herein and no allegation of breach of trust was made in the plaint and the allegation made in the plaint would not bring the suit within the ambit of section 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure and therefore, the court should not have granted leave and the leave has to be revoked. The learned Senior Counsel further elaborated his arguments that a reading of the plaint would make it clear that one Mr.Peter Heehs has published a Biography of Sri Aurobindo called "The Lives of Sri Aurobindo" through Columbia University Press in the United States in May 2008 which contains deliberate and baseless distortions relating to the life of Sri Aurobindo and the author of the book without any factual basis or authenticity described Sri Aurobindo had romantic affairs with Mother involving veiled tantric sexual practices that Sri Aurobindo was a frequent liar and lied about his spiritual experiences, that Sri Aurobindo's spiritual experiences were based on sexual and schizophrenic stimuli, and that Sri Aurobindo was the initiator of the Hindu-Muslim divide and was responsible for the partition of the country. It is further alleged in the plaint that though the book was not published in India, the book was made available through internet and many people had read and were misled and formed a wrong opinion about Sri Aurobindo and the author of the book claimed that he was one of the founders of the Ashram Archives to give credibility to the remarks and foundation of the book and though this was brought to the knowledge of revision petitioners 2 to 6, no action was taken by them either to evict Mr.Peter Heehs, who was residing within the Ashram and on the other hand, the revision petitioners herein provided financial guarantee for the extension of stay of Mr. Peter Heehs and also sponsored for his stay in Indian and therefore, the revision petitioners were acting against the interest of the Trust and therefore, they must be removed and new trustees have to be appointed for the effective management of the trust. He, therefore, submitted that the main allegations made against the trustees are allowing Mr.Peter Heehs to stay inside the Ashram and no action has been taken for the ban of the book and such allegations w