and as held by the trial court deter the trial court from considering O.P. No.1 of 2011. For, it is seen from Ext.B1, copy of plaint in O.S. No.15 of 2003 that though a declaration is prayed for that first defendant-church in that suit (first petitioner herein) is a governed by the 1934 Constitution, the further relief sought for is a decree for prohibitory injunction restraining the defendants in that suit, their men and agents from causing obstruction to the first plaintiff in that suit (and as amended, or any other Vicar/Vicars appointed by the Diocese Metropolitans of the Kandanad Diocese in accordance with the 1934 Constitution) in entering into the church-first petitioner and conducting holly mass and other spiritual, ecclesiastical and temporal functions as a Vicar of the Church. In the present case the relief sought for apart from declaration regarding the church being governed by the 1934 Constitution involves a direction to the third respondent4th defendant to conduct election to the post of Secretary, Trustee, etc., It is settled that to grant leave under Sec.92 of the Code it is sufficient that at least one relief sought for comes within the sub clauses of Sec.92 of the Code. Sub clause (a) deals with removing of trustees while sub clause (b) deals with appointment of new trustees. In this case as aforesaid there is a
