This Court has earlier reserved the orders on 21.12.2017 and upon perusing the papers, as this Court needed clarification, the matter was again listed for clarification on 22.02.2018 and orders were reserved.

2. In a suit for declaration and permanent injunction filed by the respondents, the petitioners/defendants filed an application in I.A.No.192 of 2017 in OS.No.58 of 2017 to reject the plaint on the ground that the first petitioner/first defendant is a public educational charitable trust. Hence, under Section 92 of the Civil Procedure Code, the respondents/plaintiffs have to obtain leave to sue at the time of filing the said suit. On perusal of the plaint filed by the respondents, the respondents/plaintiff have filed the said suit under Order VII Rule 1 read with Section 92 of the Civil Procedure Code. Originally, the aforesaid plaint was presented before the learned District Court, Tiruvallur. The same was returned with an endorsement that the value of the suit is Rs.16,000/- and as per the endorsement in the re-presentation of the said plaint papers, the respondents/plaintiffs have stated that the suit is filed by the two life time trustees against the two life time trustees of the private trust. The learned District Court considering the value of the suit, returned the plaint by stating that the dispute is between private trustees and the same has to be filed before the proper jurisdictional court. The respondents/plaintiffs have submitted the aforesaid plaint before the Sub Court, Ponneri and the same was numbered as O.S.No.58 of 2017 on the file of the Sub Court, Ponneri. The petitioners/defendants have filed an application in IA.No.192 of 2017 under Order VII Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Code by raising the ground that the respondents/plaintiffs have filed the suit without obtaining the necessary leave and hence, the said suit is liable to be rejected and the same is barred by law. After filing the counter affidavit on behalf of the respondents/ plaintiffs, the Sub Court, Ponneri dismissed the said application by holding that the aforesaid suit trust is a private trust and the grounds raised by the petitioners/defendants can be decided at the time of trial in the suit.

3. The learned counsel for the revision petitioners would submit that the suit is barred by law without filing an application under Section 92 of the Civil Procedure Code. The court below has lost its sight by holding that the suit trust is public trust which is not correct. The observation of the court below that the "suit trust is run by the family members of the founder of the Trust and therefore it is a private trust", is totally unsustainable and the same is liable to be set aside. Hence, the revision petitioners have filed the present Civil Revision Petition.

4. It is also brought to the notice of this Court that the petitioners have filed the plaint before the Principal District Court, Tiruvallur under Order VII Rule 1 read with Section 92 of the Civil Procedure Code for declaration, to remove the second defendant as the Managing Trustee of the first defendant's Trust, to appoint a third party to administer the school and for permanent injunction. At the time of re-presenting the papers by the respondents/plaintiffs before the District Court, it was stated that the prayer as sought for in the suit is declaration and permanent injunction against the petitioners 2 and 3 herein and also to remove the Managing Trustee of the first defendant private trust. Therefore, the suit is maintainable before the Sub Court, Ponneri. On re-presentation of the papers before the Sub Court, Ponneri, the same was received by the Sub Court, Ponneri. The revision petitioners have filed an application in I.A.No.192 of 2017 to reject the plaint on the ground that the respondents/plaintiffs have not obtained necessary leave to sue under Section 92 of the Civil Procedure Code for filing the suit.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioners relied upon the decision of t