Bhashyam Aiyangar, J.
1. Under Section 18 of Act XX of 1863 the Judge is to determine, on the perusal of the application itself, whether there are sufficient prima facie grounds for giving sanction to institute a suit under Section 14 for the removal of a trustee and for recovery of damages. In this case sanction is sought for, for instituting a suit against eight trustees of a Durga for their removal and for the recovery of damages from them. The petition alleges numerous acts of malfeasance, breach of trust and neglect of duty against all the eight trustees as counter-petitioners jointly extending over a period of 15 years without making any distinction between them. The petition does not even state when each of the eight trustees was appointed to the office of trustee or became trustee; nor does it allege that all the eight have been trustees during the period of the alleged mismanagement covered by the petition. When one application is made against several trustees; the application should clearly set forth the charges and the nature of the charges made against each especially as under Section 18,the judge is to determine merely on a perusal of the verified petition whether there are sufficient prima facie grounds against each of the trustees and the judge would be acting with material irregularity in the exercise of his jurisdiction in according sanction based on a general petition like the one in question and if such irregularity should materially prejudice the trustees as it has done in this case, this Court can exercise its powers of revision under Section 622, Civil Procedure Code. In this case the District Judge thought it fit to issue notices to all the eight trustees before giving sanction and an answer in writing was filed from which it clearly appears that counter-petitioners Nos. 2, 4 and 7 respectively became trustees in December 1898, December 1899 and May 1901, The respondents admit this except in the case of second counter-petitioner who, according to them, became trustee in December 1897. The respondent's pleader is unable to draw attention to even a single paragraph of the petition in which the act of malfeasance alleged is stated to have taken place subsequently to May 1901.
2. I, therefore, set aside the order, dated the 6th November 1902 and remand the application to be restored to file and disposed of according to law. The petitioners should be required to amend their petition in the manner above indicated and. as the counter-petitioners have already had notice, the amended petition should be posted for re-hearing after giving notice to counter-petitioners and disposed of after hearing both parties.
3. The revision petition is allowed with costs. It is represented that a suit has been actually instituted on the strength of the sanction and that the same is now pending.
4. It will be open to the judge to adjourn it until the final disposal of the application for sanction.