ORDER :

R. Subbiah, J.

1. Both these Review Applications have been filed to review the Judgment and Decree dated 13.02.2020 passed in O.S.A. No. 250 of 2019.

2. By the said Judgment dated 13.02.2020, this Court dismissed two Original Side Appeal Nos. 115 and 250 of 2019, which were filed as against the order dated 03.08.2018 passed by the learned Single Judge in Application No. 60 of 2018.

3. Application No. 60 of 2018 was filed seeking to revoke the leave granted on 23.10.2017 in Application No. 6404 of 2017 in C.S. No. 908 of 2017.

4. By order dated 03.08.2018, the learned Single Judge refused to revoke the leave granted on 23.10.2017 and dismissed Application No. 60 of 2018 for revocation of leave.

5. Aggrieved by the order dated 03.08.2018, as mentioned above, two Original Side Appeals have been filed before this Court. While O.S.A. No. 115 of 2019 was filed by the defendants 7 and 10 in the suit, the other appeal in O.S.A. No. 250 of 2019 has been filed by third parties, who are the Trustees of Sathyabama Educational Trust, challenging the leave granted by the Court. Now, the present Review Applications have been filed only to review the Judgment and Decree dated 13.02.2020 passed in O.S.A. No. 250 of 2019.

6. For better understanding of the array of parties, reference is made to the Review Applicants as well as respondents in these Review Applications as per their litigative status in the suit as "plaintiffs" and "defendants".

7. As we have already dealt with the factual matrix of the case, which led to the filing of O.S.A. Nos. 115 and 250 of 2019 in the Judgment under review, we are not inclined to reiterate them any further in this order.

8. The present Review Applications are filed mainly on two grounds and they are (i) the findings rendered by this Court to the effect that a single suit is maintainable for framing a scheme decree in respect of two public trusts and (ii) at the time of consideration of an application for revocation of leave, it is sufficient to go into the plaint averments alone, are contrary to well settled legal principles of law and there is error apparent on the face of records, and therefore, the Judgment of this Court is required to be reviewed.

9.(i) Mr. Kumar Shashank, learned counsel appearing for the Review Applicants in Review Application No. 52 of 2020 has invited our attention to Section 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure (in short "CPC") and submitted that a suit can be filed for administration of a Trust, as has been contemplated under Clauses (a) to (h) of Section 92 of CPC. The plaintiffs have filed this suit under Section 92 (g) of the CPC for settling a scheme in respect of the two public Trusts, which are the defendants 1 and 2 in the suit. It is his submission that the filing of the suit for framing a scheme in respect of two public Trusts, itself, is contrary to the object with which Section 92 of CPC had been enacted. According to him, a suit can be filed against 'a Trust' in case of necessity for administration of such Trust, for settling a scheme. Since in this case, the suit had been filed for framing such a scheme in respect of two public Trusts, the suit itself cannot be entertained. In this context, the learned counsel appearing for the review applicants placed reliance on a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Ashok Kumar Gupta Vs. Sitalaxmi Sahuwala Medical Trust, reported in 2020 (4) SCC 321, wherein it was held that unless the conditions specified under Section 92 of the CPC are fulfilled, an action against a public Trust is not maintainable. The learned counsel appearing for the review applicants invited the attention of this Court to the relevant portion of the said judgment, which reads as follows:-

"12. Three conditions are, therefore, required to be satisfied in order to invoke Section 92 of the Code and to maintain an action under the said section, namely, that;

(i) the Trust in question is created for public purposes of a charitable or religious nature;

(ii) there is