ORDER: This revision petition has been filed against the order of the trial Court in I.A.No.511 of 1996 in O.S.No.556 of 1991 holding that the first respondent institution having been registered under the Societies Registration Act, the petitioners will have to work out their remedies only under the provisions of the said Act and the suit itself was not maintainable and consequently, no application under Sec.92 of the Civil Procedure Code can be maintained. 2. Though the respondents were duly served in this revision petition, they have neither appeared in person nor through counsel and in such circumstances, this revision petition is disposed of on its own merits. 3. Mr.S.Balasubramanian, learned counsel for the petitioners at the outset has brought to my noticed that the earlier order of this Court dated 15.6.1992 in C.R.P.No.2986 of 1991, wherein the very same question about maintainability of application under Sec.92 of the Civil Procedure Code seeking permission to launch the suit as against the first respondent came to be decided. 4. In fact, the petitioners filed an application under Sec.92 of the Civil Procedure Code in I.A.No.567 of 1998 seeking the leave of the trial Court to institute the suit on the footing that the first respondent institution is a public Trust and that the petitioners are interested persons and as such, they were entitled to file the suit for the reliefs prayed for therein. The said application came to be allowed by the trial Court and as against which, C.R.P.No.2986 of 1991 was filed by the first and second respondent herein. The same revision petition was decided on merits and in the order dated 15.6.1992, the learned Judge has given the following findings in paragraph 5 and 7: "Para 5: Thus, even from the stand taken by the petitioners, it had to be accepted that the first petitioner is a public Trust and as pointed out earlier, the objects are charitable and the first petitioner would undoubtedly fall within the scope of a public Trust for charitable purposes as contemplated under Sec.92 of the Code. The first contention urged by the learned counsel for the petitioners cannot, therefore, be accepted..." "Para 7: ...Respondents 1 to 3, as could be gathered from para 10 of the plaint, are the followers of Periyar, the founder of the Movement and they have been propagating and practicing in their life and work, the ideals and objects of the founder, they should be regarded as persons interested in the proper administration and management of the first petitioner intended for promoting and carrying out the objects on the fonder.... Thus, on a due consideration of the facts and circumstances of this case, in the light of the materials on record, the Court below was quite justified in granting leave to the respondents to institute the suit against the petitioners praying for reliefs under Sec.92 of the Code. There is no illegality or irregularity in the order of the Court below meriting interference by this Court in the exercise of revisional jurisdiction under Sec.115 of the Code. No other point was urged. The civil revision petition is therefore dismissed. There will be no order as to costs." 5. Irrespective of the said concluded verdict of this Court in the earlier revision petition, the Court below appeared to have framed the preliminary issues as to the rights of the petitioners to launch the suit as well as the maintainability of the application under Sec.92 of the Civil Procedure Code by entertaining I.A.No.511 of 1996 filed by the respondents herein. In the said application, the impugned order has been passed by the Court below on 26.4.1999 holding that the first respondent institution being a society registered under the Societies Registration Act, the application under Sec.92 of the Civil Procedure Code cannot be maintained. 6. On perusal of the impugned order in this revision petition, I find that the trial Court seemed to have been fully aware of the order of this Court in C.R.P.No.2986 of 1991. This can be discerned from the fact that the petitioners herein in their counter to I.A.No.511 of 1996 raised a specific plea that in the light of the order in C.R.P.No.2986 of 1991, the question about the maintainability of the suit cannot be gone into. It has also been pointed out therein that the said order had become final inasmuch as no further appeal was preferred against the order in C.R.P.No.2986 of 1991. It has also been pointed out therein that the said order had become final inasmuch as no further appeal was preferred against the order in C.R.P.No.2986 of 1991. More over, in paragraph 5 of the order impugned, the Court below specifically referred to the earlier orders passed in the application filed under Sec.92 of the Civil Procedure Code. Apparently, the Court below only referred to the earlier order of the trial Court, which came to be confirmed in C.R.P.No.2986 of 1991 inasmuch the expression used in the said paragraph is with regard to the orders passed in the application filed under Sec.92 of the Civil Procedure Code. 7. Unfortunately, irrespective of the Court below being aware of the said position, namely that the application under Sec.92 of the Civil Procedure Code having been allowed by the Court below in I.A.No.567 of 1988, which had also been confirmed by this Court in C.R.P.No.2986 of 1991, it virtually superseded the orders of this Court on the very same issue, with reference to which, final verdict had already been rendered. It can only be said that the order of the Court below in holding that the application under Sec.92 of the Civil Procedure Code was not only maintainable, but also runs contrary to the very order of this Court in C.R.P.No.2986 of 1991, which had been rendered in these proceedings and which was binding on the Court below. 8. In fact, the Court below ought not to have attempted to frame even the preliminary issue on this question when once the earlier revision petition came to be disposed of confirming the legal position as regards the maintainability of the application under Sec.92 of the Civil Procedure Code as well as the rights of the petitioners to file the suit as interested persons. Therefore, various findings now rendered by the Court below in the impugned order are, on the face of it, in violation of the orders of this Court and cannot be allowed to stand. It will have to be stated that the Court below, being subordinate to this Court, ought to have maintained judicial discipline in following the binding orders of this Court, in the very same proceedings without attempting to cause any violation of such orders. It will have to be stated that the Court below, being subordinate to this Court, ought to have maintained judicial discipline in following the binding orders of this Court, in the very same proceedings without attempting to cause any violation of such orders. I feel that less said is better as regards the conduct of the Court below while framing the preliminary issue about the maintainability of the application filed under Sec.92 of the Civil Procedure Code. Further even going by the findings of the Court below, the first respondent institution is, in fact, a public Trust, though it is also claimed that it has also been registered under the Societies Registration Act. It has also been found that the petitioners are interested persons. Therefore, it is axiomatic that the suit as launched by the petitioners by getting the necessary permission under Sec.92 of the Civil Procedure Code was perfectly valid and maintainable. Therefore, even on merits, the ultimate conclusion of the Court below is liable to be set aside. 9. In view of my conclusions as regards the perversity of the order impugned in this revision petition, the civil revision petition stands allowed and the impugned order is hereby set aside. The trial Court is directed to restore the suit to its file and dispose of the same on merits expeditiously.