Ramachandran Nair, J.

The plaintiffs in O.S.No.16/2011 aggrieved by the order in I.A.No.1081/2010 have filed this appeal. The said petition was filed by invoking Section 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure (C.P.C. for short) seeking leave to sue. The parties are before this Court for the second time. By the order dated 4.12.2010, the court below had granted leave which was challenged before this Court by the defendants. In O.P.(C) No.3743/2011, the order was set aside and the I.A. was remanded back for consideration afresh. The said judgment is reported as Church of South India v. John (2012 (2) KLT 606). By the said judgment, this Court allowed the plaintiffs and the defendants to adduce evidence also. After the matter was sent back, the first plaintiff has been examined as PW1. After referring to the evidence adduced and after considering the pleadings, the learned Judge rejected the application.

2. We heard the learned counsel for the appellants Sri.K.V.Sadananda Prabhu and the learned counsel for the respondents Sri.Sathish Ninan.

3. In the plaint, the first defendant is shown as the Church of South India and the second defendant is the Church of South India Trust Association, represented by its Secretary, both having the Chennai address. One of the main reliefs sought for is to direct incorporation of a scheme in the constitution of first defendant Church of South India providing for the constitution of a trustee committee and rules for the management and control of the properties of the first defendant trust. Another relief sought for is to hand over the administration of the trust properties to the newly appointed trustees in place of the 2nd defendant on the incorporation of a scheme.

4. Before going into the contentions of the parties, we will extract the operative portion of the judgment of this Court whereby the matter was remanded back. In paragraph 6, it has been directed as follows :

"but whether the petitioners have interest in the trust, and if so, whether it is real and substantial, and leave is applied by them bona fide, has necessarily to be examined by the court below to determine whether they are entitled to get leave for instituting the suit as applied for. I find the petitioners have to be provided with an opportunity to show that they have got real, substantive and existing interest in the trust, to institute a suit under S.92 of the Code. So much so, setting aside Ext.P4 order, the court below is directed to examine the question whether the petitioners have interest in the trust, providing both sides opportunity to lead evidence on that limited question, that alone, for the purpose of determining whether the application moved by the petitioners for leave to institute the suit is allowable. I make it clear that the interests that has to be shown by the petitioners, at this stage, may be oral or documentary as no conclusive opinion on the question of their interests need be made at the stage of granting leave but to grant such leave, the court must be satisfied prima facie that they have real, substantive and existing interest in the trust. Any finding made in favour of the petitioners on such enquiry will still be open for adjudication in the suit if permission is granted to institute a suit by them. But such enquiry on the question whether they have real, substantive and existing interest at the time of grant of leave cannot be avoided as the very foundation for grant of leave apart from other essential ingredients covered by S.92 of the Code rests on their interests in the trust to institute the suit to protect and safeguard its interests."

5. Thereby the court below was directed to examine whether the petitioners have interest in the Trust and as to whether it is real, substantive and existing and whether leave applied by them is bonafide. It was also directed that the court must have satisfaction prima facie that they have real, substantive and existing interest in the Trust.

6. The learned counsel