THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY Civil Revision Petition No.3412 of 2009 ORDER: Respondents 1 to 3 filed O.S.No.266 of 2009 in the Court of Principal Junior Civil Judge, Kadapa, against the petitioners and respondent No.4, for the relief of declaration that the Executive Committee of the 28th Diocesan Council of C.S.I.R.D, is null and void, and for ancillary reliefs in the form of injunction etc. While presenting the plaint, respondents 1 to 3 filed I.A.No.572 of 2009, under Section 92 C.P.C., for grant of leave to institute the suit. The trial Court granted the leave, through order, dated 06.05.2009. The same is challenged in this C.R.P. Sri J.Prabhakar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, submits that, the trial Court was under obligation to issue notice to the petitioners and respondent No.4, before granting leave. He places reliance upon a judgment of the Supreme Court in Vidyodaya Trust v. Mohan Prasad R[1]. Sri Y.Krishna Reddy, learned counsel for respondents 1 to 3, on the other hand, submits that, it is always in the discretion of a trial Court to grant, or refuse, leave under Section 92 C.P.C., and there is no obligation to issue notice to the defendants, in the suit. He relies upon a judgment of the Supreme Court in R.M.Narayana Chettiar v. N.Lakshmanan Chettiar[2]. The subject-matter of the C.R.P., is an order of leave granted by the trial Court. A serious objection is raised, as to the maintainability of the C.R.P. itself. However, from the various judgments rendered by the Courts, is evident; a revision, as such, is not barred. There is acute difference of opinion, as to the requirement to issue notice to the defendants, in a suit, before granting leave, under Section 92 C.P.C. I n R.M.Narayana Chettiar’s case (2 supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that, such a notice is not necessary, or mandatory, though it may be a matter of convenience. In Vidyodaya Trust’s case (1 supra), though it was indicated that issue of notice to the proposed defendants in a suit while granting leave under Section 92 would avoid further litigation, it was clarified that institution of the suit on the strength of a leave granted without issuing notice to the defendants, cannot be said to be untenable. Law provides facility to the defendants in a suit of this nature to file an application to withdraw the leave granted in favour of the plaintiffs. Hence, C.R.P. is disposed of, leaving it open to the petitioners herein to file an application for withdrawal of the leave granted by the trial Court. As and when such application is filed, it shall be dealt with on its own merits. There shall be no order as to costs. ____________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY, J. Dated:18.08.2009. GJ [1] (2008) 4 SCC 115 [2] AIR 1991 SC 221