Judgment :- ORDER S.Sankarasubban, J. Plaintiffs in O.S. No.184/98 on the file of the Third Addl. Sub Judge, Kozhikode are the revision petitioners. The 1st revision petitioner, an unregistered society, which got registered subsequently, as an organization of Christ's faithful belonging to and attending the numerous and several churches under the Syro Malabar Church. The other revision petitioners were the plaintiffs in the suit who are interested in the subject matter of the suit which is a public trust. The petitioners filed O.S. No.184/98 before the Sub Court, Kozhikode seeking several reliefs, inter alia, a declaration that the draft rules, Palliyogam Procedural Rules, promulgated by the 1st respondent and attempted to be implemented by the 2nd respondent and similar other Bishops of the church are ultra vires the Gospel, the Holy Bible, Catholic Church ideals and traditions and therefore unlawful and unenforceable. The petitioners also sought a prohibitory injunction restraining the respondents and similarly placed other persons from implementing the impugned rules dated 16-1-1998 and for settling scheme for widespread discussion of the rules for decision and acceptance. Since the subject matter of the suit being a public trust, the suit was filed under section 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The plaintiffs filed I.A. No. 3307/98 seeking leave under section 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The said petition was allowed on 2-7-1998. 2. The defendants filed separate written statement contending, inter alia, that the suit is not maintainable and that the head quarters of the Syro Malabar Church is situated at St.Thomas Mount in Ernakulam District from whom the impugned Rules and Regulations were passed by the Synod of Bishops and decreed by the 1st respondent/1st defendant who is the head of the Church as appointed by His Holiness the Pope and that the plaintiffs ought to have filed the suit before the Ernakulam Sub Court and the Sub Court, Kozhikode has no jurisdiction to try the suit. 3. Application for temporary injunction filed by the plaintiffs was dismissed and against that C.M.A. No. 111/99 was filed before the District Court, Kozhikode. The Sub Court framed 13 issues. The court fee was remitted. Issue Nos. 2 and 3 were heard as preliminary issues. First issue as framed is whether the suit is maintainable. Second issue was whether the court has jurisdiction to try the suit, since the first defendant with his head quarters at Mount St. The Sub Court framed 13 issues. The court fee was remitted. Issue Nos. 2 and 3 were heard as preliminary issues. First issue as framed is whether the suit is maintainable. Second issue was whether the court has jurisdiction to try the suit, since the first defendant with his head quarters at Mount St. Thomas at Kakkanad in Ernakulam had passed the decree from there enforcing the Palliyogam Procedural Rules. The learned Sub Judge considered the second issue first and find that the court has no jurisdiction to adjudicate the suit and the suit is only to be returned to the plaintiffs for presentation before proper court. Thereafter the court further proceeded to decide the first issue regarding maintainability and found that the suit is not maintainable and dismissed the suit. It is against the above judgment the civil revision petition is filed. 4. Regarding the question of jurisdiction the court below relied on section 20 of the Code of Civil Procedure and held that since there was more than one defendant each of the defendants should be residing within the jurisdiction of the court where the suit is instituted unless the cause of action arises within the jurisdiction of the court except in the case referred to in clause (b) of section 20.There neither leave nor consent of the defendants as referred to in section 20(b). Hence the court has no jurisdiction to try the suit and the suit is only to be returned to the plaintiffs for presentation before proper court. Then the court went to decide on issue No.1. Regarding issue No.1 what the court stated is that the plaintiffs sought leave under section 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure by filing I.A. No.3307/98. The suit was registered and numbered as O.S. No.184/98 before granting any leave as sought for in I.A. No. 3307/98. I.A. No.3307/98 was seen allowed only on 2-7-1998 without notice to the respondents. Then it held that the leave is to precede the institution of the suit, since no proper grant of the leave was sanctioned, the suit is not maintainable. The suit was dismissed. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the court below was not correct in holding that the Kozhikode Court had no jurisdiction. Being a suit under section 92, the suit was maintainable within the local limits of Kozhikode jurisdiction. The suit was dismissed. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the court below was not correct in holding that the Kozhikode Court had no jurisdiction. Being a suit under section 92, the suit was maintainable within the local limits of Kozhikode jurisdiction. The further contention was that once it is found that the suit is not maintainable, that court did not have jurisdiction to go to decide other questions on merits. It ought to have returned the suit to be filed in proper court. Instead of this the court went to the question whether the suit is not maintainable and it held that the grant of leave did not maintainable on the ground that the grant of leave did not precede the registration of the suit. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the decision on the second issue is vitiated by two aspects. (1) Once the court found that it has no jurisdiction, it did not have the right to decide the question. (2) In the present case so far as the petitioners are concerned, they filed a leave petitions and the said leave was granted and then only notice in the suit was issued. But the office of the Sub Court, Kozhikode made a mistake in numbering the suit. Mere numbering the suit does not mean that the suit is registered. Hence the contention was that regarding the decision of the issue of maintainability of the suit is not correct. 6. Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the petition under section 115 is not maintainable. After considering issues 1 and 2 the court found that the suit is not maintainable and hence the suit has been dismissed. Since the suit has been dismissed, there is a decree. Hence the petition under section 115 is not maintainable. Learned counsel for the respondents also argued on merits supporting the decision on the issues by the court below. 7. After hearing both parties I am of the view that the order passed by the court below cannot be sustained. If the court finds that it has no jurisdiction to try the suit, it ought to have returned the plaint to be presented to the proper court. It did not have further jurisdiction to go on the question of the maintainability or merits of the case. If the court finds that it has no jurisdiction to try the suit, it ought to have returned the plaint to be presented to the proper court. It did not have further jurisdiction to go on the question of the maintainability or merits of the case. The Honourable Supreme court had occasion to consider such a question in Athmananthaswami Devasthanam V. K.Gopalaswami Ayyangar, 1965 SC 338. In that case the Honourable Supreme Court has observed in para 13 of the Judgment is as follows: - "13. The last point urged is that when the Civil Court has no jurisdiction over the suit, the High Court could not have dealt with the cross objection filed by the appellant with respect to the adjustment of certain amount paid by the respondent. This contention is correct. When the court had no jurisdiction over the subject matter of the suit it cannot decide any question on merits. It can simply decide on the question of jurisdiction and coming to the conclusion that it had no jurisdiction over the matter had to return the plaint. 8. Here what has been done is that after holding that it had no jurisdiction, instead of ordering the plaint to be returned to be presented before proper court, court had gone to decide the second issue. This procedure, according to me, is wrong. Even on the question of jurisdiction the court below is not correct because the court below applied only section 20. According to proviso to section 92, on the basis of which the suit is instituted, according to the learned counsel for the petitioners, if part of subject matter is situated within the jurisdiction of the Sub Court, Kozhikode, the suit is maintainable. This aspect of the matter has not been considered by the trial court. Hence, according to me, the question of jurisdiction has to be re-considered by the trial court. 9. The next question is regarding the decision on issue No.1. What the court held is that the suit was registered before the petition for leave was granted. This Court is of the view that the above decision is wrong. No doubt section 92 says that a suit can be instituted only after leave is granted under section 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure. At present what is done is leave petition and the suit are filed simultaneously. This Court is of the view that the above decision is wrong. No doubt section 92 says that a suit can be instituted only after leave is granted under section 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure. At present what is done is leave petition and the suit are filed simultaneously. After leave is granted the suit is registered. If leave is refused the suit does not exist. It is also clear from the decision that it is not necessary to hear the opposite party to grante leave. Leave can be granted even ex parte. Only thing is that when the other party enters appearance he can file a petition to revoke the leave. In the present case after leave was granted respondents entered appearance and filed a petition to revoke the leave. So far as the procedure has been followed properly, but mistake done is that the office of the Sub Court registered the suit even before the leave was granted. The court below takes the view that since the suit was registered before the leave was granted. The suit is void. I had occasion to consider a similar problem in Amrithakumari V. Ramanathan 1998 (2) KLT 305. In paragraph 7 of the above decision this aspect was discussed is as follows: - "7. The next contention is that there was irregularity in the proceedings. Learned counsel for the petitioners brought to my notice that what has been done in this case is that the plaint was filed along with the I. A. for grant of leave. The leave petition does not say the entire facts. The suit was also numbered as O.S. NO.7/96 before the leave was granted. I am also of the view that the leave petition has to be considered independently. Leave petition should contain all facts just as a petition filed for prosecuting a suit as an indigent person. It should contain the statement of facts, grounds on which the plaintiff relies and also the relief sought for in the plaint. Suit can be instituted only after the leave is granted. Hence, the lower courts should take care to see that leave petitions alone are filed at the initial stage and it should contain all facts. Regarding irregularity I don't think that any prejudice was caused to the petitioners to any extent. Suit can be instituted only after the leave is granted. Hence, the lower courts should take care to see that leave petitions alone are filed at the initial stage and it should contain all facts. Regarding irregularity I don't think that any prejudice was caused to the petitioners to any extent. But I make it clear that it is the duty on the part of the Court to see that suit is numbered only after leave is granted. 10. In the present case there was no fault on the part of the petitioners. The fault was on the part of the office of the court in numbering the suit. I am of the view that a person should not suffer because of the mistake committed by the court. The respondents also filed a petition to revoke the leave. In the above view of the fact, the lower court was not correct in holding that the suit was not filed properly. The next question to be considered is since the suit was dismissed whether this Court should interfere under section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that it is because of the finding on issues 1 and 2 that is suit was dismissed. As a matter of fact, the findings on issues 1 and 2 are liable to be challenged in revision. It is as a result of the consequence of the order passed on issues 1 and 2 that the suit was dismissed. Further, it was submitted that under Article 227 of the Constitution of India this court has ample power to put the court below within their jurisdiction. It is true that normally this Court does not interfere, since alternative remedies are available. That does not mean that this Court should not exercise the power when the order of the court below within their jurisdiction. It is true that normally this Court does not interfere, since alternative remedies are available. That does not mean that this Court should not exercise the power when the order of the court below is palpably, illegal and causes great hardship to the party. When the court found that it had no jurisdiction, it ought to have returned the plaint to be presented to the proper court. That does not mean that this Court should not exercise the power when the order of the court below is palpably, illegal and causes great hardship to the party. When the court found that it had no jurisdiction, it ought to have returned the plaint to be presented to the proper court. The party would have accepted the finding and presented the plaint in some other court or it would have filed an appeal against the order. So also, according to me, the order passed by the court below on issue No.1 is causing great prejudice to the petitioners and it had to suffer for no fault of its. 11. Taking into account the above facts and on the ground that the suit was only dismissed because the finding on issues 1 and 2, I am of the view that this Court is entitled to entertain appeals under Article 227 of the Constitution. In the above view of the fact I set aside the judgment of the court below and direct the court below to reconsider the matter. According to me, the issue regarding the registration of the suit does not arise because there is no illegality. Since the respondents were filed a petition to vacate the order granting leave, that question can be considered after the court finds whether it had jurisdiction. The case is sent back to the Sub Court, Kozhikode. The party shall appear before the Sub Court, Kozhikode on 30-11-2001. The Civil revision petition is allowed.