IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.725 of 2011 (O&M) Date of decision:10.01.2013 United Church of Northern India Punjab Synod and others. ...Petitioners versus Bishop Karam Masih and others ....Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN ---- Present: Mr. Sanjay Jain, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr. Hemant Bassi, Advocate, for respondents No.1, 11, 12, 13, 14, 68, 70, 71, 73, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 82, 83, 85, 87 and 88. Mr. Sanjiv Gupta, Advocate, for respondents No.18 to 20, 22 to 25, 27 to 29, 31, 35 to 39, 42 to 46, 53, 55 to 64 and 67. Ms. Prabha Sharma, Advocate, for Ms. Kiran Bala Jain, Advocate, for respondent No.51. ---- K.Kannan, J. (Oral) 1. The revision is against the summary rejection of a petition under Section 92 holding that the suit was premature and the suit had been filed without obtaining leave. The Court need not have dismissed the suit but must have taken an adjudication on the petition filed under Section 92 and if the petition was allowed, suit was to be considered as properly laid. The impugned order is set Civil Revision No.725 of 2011 (O&M) - 2 - aside. The Court shall consider the petition under Section 92 CPC on the grounds stated and to ascertain whether it falls within the parameters laid down under Section 92 CPC and take a decision in accordance with law. The application under Order 1 Rule 8 may also be considered along side petition Section 92 CPC. The order impugned is set aside and the revision is allowed and remitted to the trial Court at Ambala for disposal in the light of the observations made above. 2. Parties shall appear before the Court at Ambala on 12.02.2013. (K.KANNAN) JUDGE 10.01.2013 sanjeev