PABITRA KUMAR BANERJEE, B. N. MAITRA, JJ ( 1 ) THE plaintiffs filed an application for a temporary injunction. The allegation is that in January, 1981, defendant no. 2, S. C. Lakhotia, member of one of the Lodges interested to buy, or to take a lease of 30 cottahs out of the property at 19, Park Street, Calcutta, for a long term, came in touch with some members of the committee of Bengal Freemasons' Trust Association, defendant no 1. He acted in concert with them, prepared a plan to get possession of a portion of the property with a view to having a sham transaction on the pretext of developing the same. It is very valuable property. The plaintiffs will suffer irreparable loss if it is let out at such a lease for a period of 99 years to defendant no. 2. The latter is bound to deal with the trust property to the best advantage of the beneficiaries. Of course, some resolutions were passed at some meetings for the purpose of such lease under the colour of development of the property. But those meetings are irregular ones and not in accordance with the Articles of Association. The plaintiffs are the members of the District Grand Lodge of Bengal and also of a Board of General Purposes, which is the governing body of the District Grand Lodge of Bengal. Hence this application to restrain the defendant no. 1 from granting lease and also from executing an agreement of lease. ( 2 ) THE prayer was opposed by both defendants nos. 1 and 2. ( 3 ) THE learned Chief Judge of the City Civil court considered the case on the point whether the plaintiffs petitioners had locus standi to file the suit and ask for a temporary injunction. He answered that question in the negative, declined to go into other questions and dismissed the prayer for temporary injunction. Hence this appeal by the plaintiffs. ( 4 ) IT has been argued on behalf of the appellants that the plaintiffs are also some of the beneficiaries and so they have locus standi to tile the present application for temporary injunction. Reference has been made to sections 11, 12, 13, 49, 59 and 61 of the Trust Act and to the case of Dunce Vs. Goldinham in L. R. 8 Ch. Reference has been made to sections 11, 12, 13, 49, 59 and 61 of the Trust Act and to the case of Dunce Vs. Goldinham in L. R. 8 Ch. , Appeal 902, to page 639 of Lewin on Trust and to page 384 of the Law of Trust, 10th Edition, by Keeten and Shelidn. It has been contended that any beneficiary of the trust may intervene in this regard to protect the trust property. The learned Judge acted with material irregularity in turning down the prayer for temporary injunction on the only point of locus standi without entering into the merits of the case. ( 5 ) MR. A. Mitra appearing on behalf of the respondent no. 1 stated that no permission of the court was obtained under Order 1 Rule 8 of the Code of Civil Procedure and hence the suit is not maintainable. Such permission cannot be granted after the suit is filed. There was unanimous decision to lease out the property and such decision cannot be set at naught at the instance of only two parties, viz, the two plaintiffs. ( 6 ) MR. K. K. Maitra appearing on behalf of the defendant no. 2 has referred to the case of Pratibha vs. Zila Parishad in 86 Calwn 329. It has been stated that in that case, there was a prayer for a permanent injunction. This important aspect should be considered by this Court. ( 7 ) THE provisions of order 1 Rule 8 of the Code of Civil Procedure use the word "may". It is only an enabling rule. This view was also taken in the bench case of Suren v. District Board of Nadia reported in 46 Calwn 261 at page 267. Reference can also be made to the bench case of Ahmed Ali v. Abdul Majid in 44 ILR (Cal) 258 to show that the permission under Order 1 Rule 8 of the Code of Civil Procedure can be granted subsequent to the filing of the suit. ( 8 ) THE plaintiffs are two of the members of the District Grand Lodge of Bengal, and thus they also are the beneficiaries. Mr. K. K. Maitra in a way conceded that the plaintiffs might be beneficiaries, but stated that thereby they did not acquire any locus standi to ask for a temporary injunction. ( 8 ) THE plaintiffs are two of the members of the District Grand Lodge of Bengal, and thus they also are the beneficiaries. Mr. K. K. Maitra in a way conceded that the plaintiffs might be beneficiaries, but stated that thereby they did not acquire any locus standi to ask for a temporary injunction. The proposed lease would fetch an annual income of about five lakhs. An architect has been engaged by his client at a cost of ten lakhs and the total cost of investment for erecting the proposed multistoried building on 30 cottahs of land would be to the tune of three crores and a half or so. In such circumstances, there is question of suffering irreparable loss by this client. ( 9 ) IT has already been indicated that the learned Chief Judge of the City Civil Court did not care to enter into the merits of the case. It is common case that after the disposal of the present application, a prayer for temporary injunction over the proposed lease was made in the original side of this Court and an interim injunction granted. That matter is being heard for several days at present. The matter is subjudice. In that view of the matter, we do not propose to enter into the merits of the case. We shall dispose of this miscellaneous appeal simply on the point whether there is any prima facie case. In such cases the question of locus standi is not relevant now and the Court is required to consider the questions of prima facie case, the element of balance of convenience and irreparable loss, vide the case of United Commercial Bank of India in 1981 (2) SCC 766 . ( 10 ) IT seems that a beneficiary can come to the court and allege that the other trustees have not been acting in terms of the trust, that is, they have been working in breach of the trust. According to the provisions of section 11 of the Trust Act, the trustee is required to execute the trust and he cannot deviate from if, it he does so, there will be a breach of the trust. Section 60 of the Indian Trust Act says that a beneficiary has a right that the trust property shall be properly protected and held by proper persons. Section 60 of the Indian Trust Act says that a beneficiary has a right that the trust property shall be properly protected and held by proper persons. It will appear from Section 61 of the Act that the beneficiary has a right that the trustee shall be compelled to perform any particular act of his duty as such, and restrained from committing any contemplated or probable breach of trust. Since the plaintiffs are also some of members of the District Grand Lodge of Bengal. They are also beneficiaries. In the case of Prativa vs. Zila Parishad (Supra) constructions had already been raised. Moreover, this is not at all a case of any implied or negative covenant. So, the plaintiffs have a prima facie case. They have a fair case to raise at the trial. In such circumstances for the ends of justice, the matter must be remitted to the learned Judge for deciding the matter on the merits. ( 11 ) THE appeal is allowed. The order in question be set aside and the case remitted to the learned Judge for disposal according to law in the light of the observations made hereinbefore. The application is disposed of. ( 12 ) STATUS quo as on today be maintained. This matter must be disposed of by the learned Judge within two months from today. ( 13 ) THERE will be no order as to costs. ( 14 ) NO decree need be prepared. Let this order be communicated to the court below at once. Banerjee, J. I agree. Appeal allowed without costs.