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