S N PRAKASH S/O LATE NARAYANA DAS Vs. G V KRISHNA S/O LATE G V RAO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Revision Petition is filed against the order passed by the learned Prl.City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bangalore, in Misc.No.768/2013, dated 11.6.2014, granting leave to the respondents herein to institute accompanying/scheme suit. Heard the learned counsel for respective parties.

(2.) THE facts of the case are : Respondents 1 and 2 herein stating to be the devotees of Sri Vyasaraja Mutt (Sosale) (hereinafter referred to as 'Mutt' for short) filed C.Misc.No.768/2013 seeking grant of leave to institute accompanying suit under Section 92 of CPC on 20th December 2013, making the petitioner herein as 6th defendant. It appears, in the meanwhile, interim applications were filed by respondents 1 and 2 herein i.e., I.A.1 was filed under Section 151 of CPC praying to dispense with production of original documents Nos.1 to 85, I.A.2 was filed under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of CPC praying to grant ad interim exparte temporary injunction, restraining defendant Nos.2 to 8 from interfering with the affairs or transferring, alienating or otherwise parting with the Peeta of defendant No.1 in favour of third parties, except with the prior permission of the Court and I.A.7 was filed under Section 151 of CPC praying to consider the interlocutory applications ahead of the application for grant of leave to institute a suit. By the impugned order dated 11.6.2014, the trial Court allowed these applications, granting injunction and dispensing production of original documents Nos.1 to 85, by considering I.A.7. Being aggrieved by the order granting leave to institute suit, 6th defendant stating to be the Administrator appointed by Peethadhipathy, filed the present revision petition.

(3.) ON the other hand, the learned counsel for respondents submitted that even on going through the order sheet, after issuance of notice, several adjournments have taken place, even then, objections were not filed by the petitioner as he was fully aware of institution of the case. Referring to the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of B.S.Adityan and others vs - B.Ramachandran Adityan and others,2004 AIR(C) 3448he submitted that, although as a rule of caution, Court should normally give notice to the defendants before granting leave under Section 92 to institute a suit, the Court is not bound to do so. If suit is instituted on the basis of such leave granted without notice to the defendants, the suit would not thereby be rendered bad in law or non -maintainable. But, grant of leave cannot be regarded as defeating or even seriously prejudicing any right of the proposed defendants because it is always open to them to file an application for revocation of the leave which can be considered on merits and according to law or even in the course of suit it may be established that the suit does not fall within the scope of Section 92 of CPC.