JUDGMENT : A. Muhamed Mustaque, J. The short question in this original petition is regarding the satisfaction to be entered by the court in a suit instituted under Section 92 of the Civil Procedure Code. 2. This original petition is filed by some of the respondents in the leave petition. The court below granted leave to the plaintiffs. The main contention raised before this court is that no satisfaction has been arrived at by the court below with regard to the plaint allegations and therefore, the court below committed jurisdictional error in granting leave. The learned counsel for the petitioners points out that the separate application being filed for leave is made by judicial practise and no such practise is referable to Section 92 CPC. Therefore, paramount consideration is the plaint allegations and nothing else. It is pointed out by the counsel for the petitioners that the allegations in the leave alone were considered by the court below and the same also contain certain allegations referable to events subsequent to the filing of the plaint. 3. The learned counsel for the plaintiffs on the other hand would submit that the allegations in the leave as well as in the plaint are one and the same and therefore, the court below is justified in granting leave. 4. Section 92 CPC contemplates leave of the court in a suit instituted against public charities alleging breach of express or constructive trust created for public purpose. Section 92 is only a safe guard against misusing the forum of the court by instituting false and frivolous case against public charities. In normal circumstances, any suit as referable to Section 9 CPC is admissible before the Civil Court after satisfying any pre-requisite formalities. However, a suit in the nature of Section 92 CPC, the court below will not admit such suit without being satisfied about the allegations as referable under the above provisions. Therefore, entry to the court below is restricted to such persons coming with a suit under Section 92 CPC. The person approaching the court with a suit under Section 92 CPC will knock at the door of the court asking the court to look into the allegations in the plaint for permitting him to enter the court for adjudication of the dispute. This request is called leave. The person approaching the court with a suit under Section 92 CPC will knock at the door of the court asking the court to look into the allegations in the plaint for permitting him to enter the court for adjudication of the dispute. This request is called leave. On being satisfied that the allegations require a consideration, the court will open the door and grant leave. There is no necessity to hear the proposed defendants in the suit while granting leave. However, if leave is granted, without hearing the proposed defendants, it is possible for the court to revoke the leave provided on the ground that plaint allegations do not set out any ground to grant leave. The court need not number the suit without satisfying the plaint allegations. In fact, under Section 92 CPC leave is in the nature of a permission to be granted by the court below to file a suit. In that sense, the plaint allegation alone need to be considered for entertaining the suit. Leave is therefore, in the nature requesting the court below to look at the plaint allegation. The consideration of the court below is therefore not the leave allegation but the request made for the leave, to look at the plaint allegations. This view is fortified by the judgment of the Division Bench of this court in P.V. Mathew and others v. K.V. Thomas and others [AIR 1983 Kerala 5] and the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Charan Singh and Another v. Darshan Singh and others [ (1975) 1 SCC 298 ]. However, a contrary view was taken by the learned Single Judge of this court in Amrithakumari v. Ramanathan [ 1998 (2) KLT 305 ], wherein this court emphasised the importance of the leave application and held that the leave application has to be considered independently. This decision according to me, looses its binding effect in the light of the earlier Division Bench judgment of this court in P.V. Mathew's case [AIR 1983 KERALA 5] and the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Charan Singh's case [ (1975) 1 SCC 298 ]. 5. Therefore, the only question is whether there is any satisfaction made by the court below with regard to the allegations in the plaint or not. 6. The impugned order extensively refers to the leave application. Nothing has been mentioned about the plaint allegations. 5. Therefore, the only question is whether there is any satisfaction made by the court below with regard to the allegations in the plaint or not. 6. The impugned order extensively refers to the leave application. Nothing has been mentioned about the plaint allegations. It is to be noted that this litigation has a chequered history on the question of leave. On an earlier round of litigation questioning the leave granted, the matter went up to the Hon'ble Supreme Court. However, the Supreme Court did not interfere with the order of this court, to reconsider the question to the leave by the District Court. In fact, the court below have meticulously considered the allegations in the leave to come to a conclusion that the petitioners in the leave are entitled to institute a suit under Section 92 of the CPC. In fact, the court below ought to have referred to the plaint allegations rather than the allegations in the leave. It is always to be kept in mind that the allegations in the plaint alone need be considered for the purpose of leave along with the documents produced with the plaint and the court is not resolving a dispute but rather only being satisfied with the prima facie allegations in the plaint to proceed further. In the circumstances, the court had not referred anything about the plaint allegations, I am of the considered view that the matter has to be remitted back to the court below for consideration of this question. Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside. The parties are directed to appear before the court below on 25.5.2017. Thereafter, the court below shall dispose of the application within four weeks thereon. The original petition is disposed of as above.