JUDGMENT S. Jagadeesan, J. 1. The appellants filed the Application No.1684 of 1987 seeking leave of the court under Section 92 C.P.C to file a suit against the respondents herein. The grievance of the appellants is that certain lands were allotted for the running of the school and though originally the residents of Gandhi Nagar were running the school, the same was handed over to the Gandhi Nagar Education Society for proper running and management. The Gandhi Nagar Cricket and Sports Club was also allotted certain lands for the purpose of construction of a pavilion. The place allotted for the play ground is being used for the construction of the school building by the second respondent and since the same is contrary to the condition of allotment as well as the undertaking given by the second respondent, they are not entitled to continue their occupation. Virtually the second respondent also encroached upon a portion of the site allotted to the Gandhi Nagar Cricket and Sports Club and built a thatched shed and converted the same in the year 1985 into a pucca asbestos shed. Since the place allotted for the park having been occupied by the second respondent, the residents of Gandhi Nagar Colony were deprived of the facility of fun and further since the action of the second respondent is contrary to the conditions imposed by the Trust, the suit was laid for the following reliefs: "1) to remove the second defendant from the office of trusteeship (2) appoint fit and proper persons in the locality as trustee (3) vest the trust property in such newly appointed trustees. (4) issue directions to the first defendant to lay out a park belt from the eastern end of the school compound in the IV Main Road to Western end to align with the park belt demarcated by Gandhinagar Cricket and Sports Club; and to the second defendant to remove the superstructure constructed in the play ground, to the school premises in the Crescent Avenue Road, where it was originally located and to restore the play ground to the original condition before the construction of the superstructure. (5) or such other reliefs as are just and proper in the circumstances of the case. (6) or costs of the suit. 2. (5) or such other reliefs as are just and proper in the circumstances of the case. (6) or costs of the suit. 2. The learned single Judge by his order dated 6.11.1996, after hearing the first appellant, as party in person, has granted the leave regarding the question as to whether the construction, if any, on the area abutting the road which is mentioned as park area in the schedule to the sale deed in favour of the Education Society, is required to be removed. So far as the removal of the school building constructed in the play ground is concerned, leave has been rejected. As against the same the present appeal has been filed. 3. Mr. Vasantha Pai, the first appellant appeared in person and contended that it is not open to the court to restrict the leave in an application under Section 92 C.P.C. When once the court finds that the applicants are entitled for the leave, the same should be in an absolute manner and whether the plaintiffs are entitled for the relief sought for in the plaint or not can be gone into only after the trial. It is not open to the court to restrict the leave to such relief while disposing of the application for the grant of leave. Hence the order of the learned single Judge cannot be sustained and is liable to be set aside. The learned counsel appearing for the second appellant adopted the argument of the first appellant. 4. The first respondent represented by counsel who simply supported the first appellant. The second respondent though having been served with the summons has not chosen to appear before this court either in person or through counsel. 5. We carefully considered the contention of the first appellant. The appellants filed the suit under Section 92(1) C.P.C for the reliefs already referred to. The learned single Judge has granted leave for a portion of the relief and rejected leave for the remaining portion. For a suit under Section 92 C.P.C the leave of the court is necessary and since the same is mandatory in order to prevent any one to come to court to wreck vengeance or personal vendetta against the management of the trust. While considering the application seeking the grant of leave, the nature of the jurisdiction conferred on the court is only an administrative one. While considering the application seeking the grant of leave, the nature of the jurisdiction conferred on the court is only an administrative one. It is for the court to consider as to whether a prima facie case has been made out for the grant of the leave for the applicants to prosecute the matter with regard to the management of the trust. While doing so, it is not open to the court to decide the rights of the parties at that stage. This is clear from the judgment of this court in HAJI K.M.ABDUL KASIM AND OTHERS V. P.M.N. MOHAMMED DAWOOD AND OTHERS AIR1964Mad247 wherein it has been held as follows: "It may be that as on the case of Section 92 C.P.C, the condition is imposed to prevent impecunious persons coming forward to fight out public rights on whom the award of costs if in case the suit were to fail, will have no effect. But, nevertheless the obtaining of a consent is only a preliminary requisite to be satisfied before a plaintiff can launch a suit. Such a sanction or consent is not for investigating any right, but only whether an investigation into the right should be made by appropriate authority, namely, the Court. There is undoubtedly a manifest distinction between the two." 6. When the court is not conferred with the jurisdiction to decide the rights of the parties at the stage of considering the application for the grant of leave under Section 92 C.P.C, the order of the learned single Judge cannot be sustained. 7. Whether the appellant is estopped in seeking the relief of removal of the school building on the ground of estoppel by conduct has to be decided only at the trial stage. 8. Hence the order of the learned single Judge, restricting the leave for a portion of the relief sought for by the applicant is set aside and the application 1684 of 1987 filed by the appellants seeking leave of the court to file a suit in respect of all the reliefs mentioned in the plaint is allowed. The granting of leave definitely will not decide the rights of the parties and the same has to be decided only after the trial. 9. The appeal is allowed. However, there will be no order as to cost.