JUDGMENT : D.DASH, J. 1. The appellants, in this appeal, have called in question the judgment dated 12.4.2019 passed by the learned District Judge, Dhenkanal in R.F.A. No.19 of 2019. 2. The appellants being the defendant nos.2 and 3 in C.S. No.160 of 2018, upon their appearance therein, filed an application under Order 7, Rule 11(d) of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short, "the Code?) for rejection of the plaint filled by the present respondent nos.1 and 2 being the plaintiffs. The plaint had been filed claiming the following reliefs:- "(1) Let the plaintiff trust be declared as valid to run the school with all its assets and Management; (2) let the newly constituted Managing Committee dated 24.4.2018 be declared as illegal; (3) let the decision to drive out the trust and members from the school affairs and Managing Committee be declared as illegal; (4) let it be decided that the defendant one has no locusstandi to hold the meeting in the manner it was held and the trust was ousted and the Managing Committee was constituted; (5) let it be declared only action and Management activity in the school other than the trust be declared as in operative; and (6) any other order as deemed proper in the facts and circumstances of the case be passed in the ends of justice." The ground on which the plaint sought to be rejected is that the suit in the present form for the reliefs as aforesaid ought to have been filed seeking leave of the Principal Civil Court of original jurisdiction or the court empowered in that behalf by the State Government within the local limits of whose jurisdiction the whole or any part of the subject matter of the trust is situate as provided under section 92 of the Code. The learned Senior Civil Judge, by order dated 2.3.2019 accepting the objection filed by the defendant nos.2 and 3, rejected the plaint for non-compliance of the provision of section 92 of the Code. 3. The plaintiffs aggrieved by the said order having filed the appeal, the same has been allowed taking a view that as in the instant suit, there arises the question of management of the school, the same does not fall within the ambit of section 92 of the Code for being filed by taking the leave as required thereunder. 3. The plaintiffs aggrieved by the said order having filed the appeal, the same has been allowed taking a view that as in the instant suit, there arises the question of management of the school, the same does not fall within the ambit of section 92 of the Code for being filed by taking the leave as required thereunder. Accordingly, the trial court has been directed to proceed with the suit for its disposal in accordance with law. 4. Learned counsel for the appellants (defendant nos.2 and 3) as well as the respondent nos.1 and 2 (plaintiffs) have been heard at length as to if there stands the substantial question/s of law meriting admission of the appeal. 5. (A). Learned counsel for the defendant nos.2 and 3 (appellants) submitted that the lower appellate court has erred in taking a view that the plaint is not liable to be rejected since the provisions of section 92 of the code are not attracted in so far as the suit in the present form as has been laid for the reliefs claimed. Referring to the provisions of section 92 of the Code and placing the averments taken in the plaint as also the reliefs claimed as stated in the aforesaid paragraphs, he contended that the following substantial question of law arises for being answered in this appeal. "(I) Whether the learned District Judge is justified in holding that since the suit relates to the management of the school which has nothing to do with the management of Trust and as such Section 92 of the C.P. Code is not attracted?; (i) Whether for the purpose of section 92 of C.P. Code, the entirety of the plaint averments is required to be looked into or only relief portion?; and (ii) Whether a suit relating to public and charitable trust and for protection of its management and property when instituted before the Civil Court of ordinary jurisdiction is required to be returned for presentation before the appropriate court or the plaint can be rejected under Order 7, Rule 11 (d) of C.P.Code?" He relied upon the decisions in case of Joginder Singh and others -V- Dy. Custodian-General of Evacuee Property and others;, (1967) AIR SC 145 and Harendra Nath Bhattacharya and others -V- Kaliram Das (dead) by LRs and others;, (1972) AIR SC 246 . 5(b). Custodian-General of Evacuee Property and others;, (1967) AIR SC 145 and Harendra Nath Bhattacharya and others -V- Kaliram Das (dead) by LRs and others;, (1972) AIR SC 246 . 5(b). Learned counsels for the respondent nos.1 and 2 (plaintiffs), refuting the submission, as above, contended that the lower appellate court, upon detail examination of the plaint averments as also the prayer made therein, in the touch stone of the provisions of section 92 of the Code, has rightly held the plaint to be entertainable. According to him, on going through the case as projected in the plaint and keeping in view the reliefs sought for, the order of the lower appellate court which has been impugned herein is unassailable. According to them, none of the questions of law as placed by the learned counsel for the appellants come to surface in the case when the cause of action giving rise to the institution of the suits for the reliefs claimed are examined and viewed in their proper perspectives and tested in the touchstone of the settled position of law governing the field. They placed reliance upon the principles of law as stated in the decisions as under:- (i) Swami Parmatmanand Saraswati and another -V-Ramji Tripathy and another;, (1974) AIR SC 2141 ; (ii) R. Venugopala Naidu and others -V- Venkatarayulu Naidu Charities and other;, (1990) AIR SC 444 ; (iii) Thayarammal (Dead) by LR -V- Kankammal & others;, (2005) AIR SC 1588 ; (iv) A. A. Gopalakrishnan -V- Cochin Devaswom Board and others;, (2007) AIR SC 3162 ; and (v) Vidyodaya Trust -V- Mohan Prasad R. and others;, (2008) AIR SC 1633 . 6. Keeping in view the rival submissions, I have perused the judgments of the appellate court as well as the order of the trial court which had been impugned in that appeal and has been set aside. The decisions cited by the learned counsels for the parties have been carefully gone through. The principles of law set out in the cited decisions are that the main purpose of section 92 of the Code is to give protection to the public trust of a charitable or religious nature from being subjected to harassment by suits being filed against the trust and to prevent an indefinite number of reckless and harassing suits being brought against the trustees by different persons interested in the trust. The real test for the applicability of the section is to see whether the suit is fundamentally on behalf of the public for vindication of a public right. 7. Adverting to the case in hand, the plaint averments in support of the claim of the reliefs claimed therein, being gone through, it is seen that Saraswati Shisu Vidya Mandir, Dhenkanal is a registered trust. The trust through its Managing Trustee applied for affiliation of Bharatiya Sikhya Vikash Sansthan (defendant no.1) for opening new school Saraswati Sishu Vidya Mandir at Dhenkanal and that being granted, the trust started running the school forming a Managing Committee. As pleaded, the trust having the paramount authority not only appointed the members to that Managing Committee but also the teachers and staffs. The role/function of the Managing Committee is to assist the trust in properly running the school. It is stated that by resolution dated 29.12.2017, Managing Committee was formed nominating Pramod Kumar Behera, defendant nos.2 as Secretary and others as office bearers. On 30.3.2018, Managing Committee meeting was called to discuss the important affairs of the school where the members of the Managing Committee created disturbance and the purpose of the meeting was frustrated. So, the Managing Committee was dissolved and new Managing Committee was constituted. It is stated that on 2.4.2018, the ousted members made resolution levelling false allegations against the trustees and they declared themselves as the members of the Managing Committee it is next stated that said Pramod Kumar Behera is not eligible to be the Secretary as he is neither a parent nor guardian of any student, furthermore, he being a teacher in an aided school, has even no eligibility to be the member of Managing Committee. The allegation is that such formation of Managing Committee of the school is without the authority and against the interest of the trust which is thus illegal. The resolution of said Managing Committee that no trustee can be member of the Managing Committee and to the effect of transfer of account of the trust and usurping the power to deal with the funds lying in the Bank are said to be illegal. The school being of the trust and as such affiliated; it is said that all said resolutions to the contrary are nonest. The school being of the trust and as such affiliated; it is said that all said resolutions to the contrary are nonest. Placing all these above, the plaintiffs have sought for a declaration that the plaintiff-trust is valid and has the authority over the management of the school with the other ancillary declarations as to the actions of the Managing Committee as illegal. The core dispute raised is the plaint is as to the management of the school. The question posed here is as to if the Managing Committee as has been constituted have the right to manage the school which is said to be the creation of the trust from out of its funds to the exclusion of the trust by way of its alienation from the trust in all respect. This suit is not on behalf of the public for vindication any public right but to protect the so called interest of the trust and its property from the hands of those who are now alleged to be intruders. The plaint case has nothing to do with a breach of trust in a trust created for public purpose or a direction of the court as deemed necessary for administration of the trust is claimed therein. In view of all the aforesaid, the submission of the learned counsel for the appellants that substantial questions of law as placed at paragraph 5, are arising for being answered in this appeal meriting its admission stands repelled. 8. In the result, the appeal stands dismissed. No order as to cost.