Anil Kumar, J.;- Matter is taken in the revised cause list. 2. None present on behalf of the respondents. Heard Sri R.K. Sharma, learned counsel for the revisionists and perused the record. 3. Sri R.K. Sharma, learned counsel for the revisionists submits that initially the plaintiff (Sri Prem Chand Agarwal) alongwith one Sri Ram Agarwal filed a Suit under Section 92 of the Civil Procedure Code. 4. Further, during the pendency of the Suit, an application was moved on behalf of the plaintiff for deleting the name of Sri Ram Agarwal and including the name of Sri Ram Shanker Misra son of Sri Deepak Misra, Resident of 66, Anand Nagar, City Sitapur, Pargana Khairabad, Tehsil and District Sitapur as plaintiff. 5. The said application has been contested by the parties in the Suit. By order dated 30.11.2000, the court below allowed the said application. 6. Aggrieved by the order dated 30.11.2000 passed by Sri Anil Kumar Srivastava, IX Additional District Judge, Sitapur in Civil Suit No. 1 of 1997(Prem Chand Vs. Sitaram Agarwal and others), the present civil revision has been filed. 7. Sri R.K. Sharma, learned counsel for the revisionists submits that Sri Ram Shanker Mishra who was allowed to be impleaded as plaintiff in the Suit has no interest in the Trust property, so he is not a necessary party in Suit, hence the impugned order passed by the court is illegal and arbitrary in nature liable to be set aside. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the revisionists and gone through the record. So far as the facts of the present case are concerned, the plaintiff (Sri Prem Chand Agarwal) alongwith one Sri Ram Agarwal as plaintiff filed a Suit under Section 92 of the Civil Procedure Code. 9. One Sri Nand Ram son of Sri Khoob Chand resident of Mohalla Nai Basti city Sitapur had owned a Dharmshala. He had no issue. Thereafter, on 04.01.1923, he created a private Trust in respect of Dharamshala known as Khoob Chand Nand Ram Dharamshala and it was provided that during his life time he would manage the same as Trustee and after his death the successor in his family would manage the same. Prem Chand Agarwal moved another application Paper No. 128 Ka-1 under Order I Rule 10 C.P.C. for impleading Rama Shanker Mishra and Ajai Kumar Agarwal as plaintiffs in the Suit. Prem Chand Agarwal moved another application Paper No. 128 Ka-1 under Order I Rule 10 C.P.C. for impleading Rama Shanker Mishra and Ajai Kumar Agarwal as plaintiffs in the Suit. In the said application Prem Chand Agarwal alleged that the disputed property is the public property and Ram Shanker was priest of the temple who was illegally terminated from the service. Against the said application of impleadment, the revisionists filed objection Paper No. 134-Ga alleging that the alleged Rama Shanker has no concern with the private Trust nor has any interest in the said private Trust of the revisionists. 10. Ajai Kumar Agarwal whose name was mentioned at Serial No. 2 in the application for impleadment Paper No. 128Ka-1, also filed objection that Prem Chand Agarwal by misleading him obtained his signature on a blank Vakalatnama, but when he came to know about the fraud and malafide intention of Prem Chand Agarwal then he filed this objection and prayed that the application for impleadment moved by Prem Chand Agarwal be rejected. 11. The trial court allowed the objection of Ajai Kumar Agarwal paper No. 131 C-2 and the application of Sri Ram Agarwal paper no. 121 Ga-2 and ordered that the name of Sri Ram Agarwal be scored out as plaintiff no. 2 as well as the name of Ajai Kumar Agarwal be also scored out from the application paper no. 128Ka-1. Trial court allowed the application paper no. 128-ka-1 treating Ram Shanker as proper and necessary party on the ground that Rama Shanker was Pujari(Priest) in the temple of Dharmshala Khoob Chand Nand Ram. 12. As per the admitted fact, the present Suit has been filed under Section 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure and in order to apply Section 92, following conditions must be satisfied. (a) There is a trust created for public purpose of a charitable or generous nature. (b) There is a breach alleged of such trust, or the direction of the Court is necessary for the administration of such trust. (c) The suit must be a representative one on behalf of the public and is not by individuals for their own interest; and (d) The relief claimed in the suit is the one or other reliefs mentioned in the section. 13. (c) The suit must be a representative one on behalf of the public and is not by individuals for their own interest; and (d) The relief claimed in the suit is the one or other reliefs mentioned in the section. 13. The real test for the applicability of Section 92 of the Code is to see whether the suit is fundamentally on behalf the public for vindication of a public right. Unless the requirements of Section 92 are strictly followed, the Suit cannot be deemed to be the suit under Section 92. 14. Further, the court has to consider the interest of the Trust and to ensure that the trustees of public charities are not put to unnecessary harassment by filing of vexatious suits by parties who have ulterior motive in obtaining leave. It has to take an objective decision on a consideration of facts of each case and its leave must cover the relief or reliefs for which the decree would be prayed for in the suit and it would be incumbent on the court to consider who are to be arrayed as plaintiffs or defendants as also the appropriate reliefs necessary in the circumstances of the case, and whether the persons are really interested in the trust and solvent and are not those whose motives are impure. 15. In view of the above settled proposition of law, I do not find any illegality or infirmity in the impugned order dated 30.11.2000 passed by the court below. 16. For the foregoing reasons, the present revision filed by the revisionists-defendant lacks merit and dismissed with a direction to the court below to proceed in the matter in question and decide the same expeditiously. 17. No order as to costs.