The essential requirements for granting permission to file a suit under Section 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure are that the person applying for permission must have an interest in the trust, and the trust must be for a public purpose of a charitable or religious nature.

The relief sought for in the revision petition is to set aside the fair and decreetal order dated 21.11.2015 made in IA.No.630 of 2013 in OS.No.44 of 2013 on the file of the III Additional District Judge, Salem.

2. The revision petitioner is the first defendant in the suit. The respondents are the plaintiffs in the suit.

3. The respondents/plaintiffs filed the suit along with an interlocutory application in IA.No.158 of 2013 to grant leave under Sections 91 and 92 of the Code. The trial Court granted leave and the plaint was numbered as OS.No.44 of 2013 on the file of the III Additional District Judge, Salem. Subsequently, the revision petitioner/first defendant filed an interlocutory application in IA.No.630 of 2013 to revoke the permission or the leave granted to the plaintiffs and to dismiss the suit. After due enquiry, the said application was dismissed by the III Additional District Judge, Salem. Feeling aggrieved against the said order the revision petitioner/first defendant is before this Court.

4. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner would submit that while granting leave under Section 92 of CPC. The Court has to see whether it is a public trust of religious and charitable endowment. Two or more persons interested have filed the application for any one of the reasons mentioned under Section 92(1)(a to h). If the suit not falls under any one of the grounds then the suit is not maintainable, without looking into the applicability of Section 92 and without giving notice to the revision petitioner/first defendant and other defendants granted exparte leave. Therefore, the revision petitioner filed an application before the trial Court, to revoke the leave granted to the plaintiffs, the trial Court without considering the above aspects granted leave is not maintainable under Section 92 of the Code and also placed reliance on the following decisions (i) (1974) 2 SCC 695 - Swami Paramatmanand Saraswati and another v. Ramji Tripathi and another (ii) (2008) 4 SCC 115 - Vidyodaya Trust v. Mohan Prasad R and others and (iii) 2007 (4) CTC 583 - P.Subramanian v. K.L.Lakshmanan and another stating that suit for vindication of private right are not maintainable, even if all the other ingredients of a suit under Section 92 are made out, if it is clear that the plaintiffs are not suing to vindictive the right of the public but are seeking a declaration of their individual or personal rights or the individual or personal rights of any other person or persons in whom they are interested then the suit would be outside the scope of Section 92, therefore the leave granted can be revoked and the learned counsel prays to set aside the order of leave granted and to reject the suit.

5. Though, notice was duly served on the respondents none appeared on behalf of Respondents 1 to 4 & 6 to 8. No appearance on behalf of the fifth respondent either in person or through the counsel on record. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the available materials on record.

6. It is settled proposition of law, the order passed under Section 92 of the Code, when the plaint is filed granting leave to sue is an administrative in nature and there is no need to pass detailed order while granting leave, being an administrative order no notice to be given to the defendants before granting leave. At the time of granting leave, the Court has to see as to whether it is a public or charitable trust or charitable endowment. On a perusal of entire records viz., Deed of Trust and Supplement Deeds to the Original Trust Deed, the name itself shows that Annai Teresa Educational and Social Welfare Charitable Trust, on reading of the Trust deed no doubt it is a Charitable Trust.

7. As per the provisions, two or more person those who are interested in the Trust can file the suit with leave of the Court against the Trust and persons who are acting against the Trust or conditions against the breach of Trust. Admittedly, in this case, in paragraphs 8, 9