The main legal point established in the judgment is that obtaining permission before institution of a suit for the relief in the nature enumerated under Section 92, C. P. C. is a condition precedent, and the court must afford opportunity of hearing and to file objection to the contesting opposite parties and record reasons for granting or refusing to grant permission.

( 1 ) IN this case counter and rejoinder-affidavits were filed by the parties. As desired by the learned counsel for the parties, case was heard and is being decided finally at this stage.

( 2 ) THE instant revision arises out of the proceedings under Section 92, C. P. C. and is directed against the judgment and order passed by the District Judge, Jhansi, dated 4. 12. 1992, granted permission to the contesting respondents to institute a suit under Section 92, C. P. C. with respect to the temple, known as, Sri Kalyan Rai Ji Virajman Mandir, Madhopura, village Bhasneh, pargana Garautha, district Jhansi, for short property in dispute. The opposite parties filed an application under Section 92, C. P. C. praying for granting permission to file the suit for constitution of a trust committee and to frame a scheme of administration for managing the trust property. It was claimed that the said property was a public trust, which was being mismanaged, therefore, it was necessary to frame a scheme of administration for proper administration of the trust property. On receipt of the notices from the court of the District Judge, applicants filed their objection pleading that the trust in question was not a public trust, that it was an ancestral and personal temple established by Bhagwan Das who appointed Mahant Ram Das Chela as manager/ Sarvarakar of the properties of the temple. He also executed a registered will dated 6. 9. 1983 in favour of Chela Prabhu Dayal. It was contended that the application filed under section 92, C. P. C. therefore, was liable to be dismissed.

( 3 ) IT is evident from the material on record that the suit, for the above-mentioned relief, was filed and simultaneously application under Section 92, C. P. C. was also filed the applicants are alleged to have filed voluminous documentary evidence in support of their case. The court below, thereafter, passed the following order : 4. 12. 1999--Case called out. The parties counsels are present. 3a is an application for permission under Section 92, C. P. C. to file the suit in respect of the property of the trust created for the religious purpose. The plots mentioned in the list 4-A-1 are said to be the property of the deity Kalyanji Maharaj, situated in village Madhopura. The revenue records have been filed and the entries are shown to be in the name of the deity. Subsequently the efforts are shown to have been made to convert--the property in the private names of opposite parties Udai Narain Chela Prabhu Dayal, Ramjiwan and Girjanandan. Since the property is shown to be that of deity and efforts have been made to privatise and take it by usurption, under the aforesaid circumstances it appears quite justifiable to give permission under section 92, C. P. C. This finding will not, however, prejudice the final disposal of the suit between the parties. ORDER application 3a is hereby allowed. Prayer for permission to file the suit under Section 92, C. P. C. is granted. District Judge, jhansi. " challenge the validity of the above noted order, as stated above, the present revision has been filed by Prabhu Dayal Tiwari and others.

( 4 ) LEARNED counsel for the applicants vehemently urged that permission to institute a suit under section 92, C. P. C. was a condition precedent. The respondents have acted illegally in filing the suit and simultaneously applying for permission under Section 92, C. P. C. The court below is also stated to have acted illegally and in excess of its jurisdiction for entertaining the said application and allowing the same. It was also urged that the order passed by the court below is a non-speaking order inasmuch as the court below failed to take into consideration and examine critically the documentary evidence filed by the applicants and acted illegally and arbitrarily in allowing the same. The impugned order was, thus, liable to be quashed. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the contesting respondents submitted that the orde