AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Mr. Dharam Chand Chaudhary, J.(Oral) - The complaint is that notice has not been issued to the petitioners/defendants before the leave to institute the suit is granted. Learned counsel representing the parties on both sides are in agreement that there is no statutory requirement to issue prior notice to the defendants of the application filed to seek the relief to institute the suit under Section 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure, however as a rule of caution the Court should normally issue notice to the defendants before granting the leave in order to prevent the harassment of the defendants or to save him money required to be spent on the expenses to be incurred upon in case the suit being filed is reckless or frivolous.
The reliance on both sides has been placed on the judgment of Hon''ble Apex Court in 1991 (1) SCC 48 titled R.M. Narayana Chettiar and another v. N. Lakshmanan Chettiar and others. Learned Counsel are, therefore, in agreement that in the event of no notice is issued and leave to institute the suit is granted, the defendants may approach the Court concerned itself to seek the revocation of leave to appeal as granted. Learned Senior Advocate has submitted that the defendants have even approached the learned trial Court for revocation of the leave so granted. In this view of the matter, the remedy to the petitioner is available in the learned trial Court itself by filing the appropriate application for seeking revocation of the leave so granted. This petition, is therefore, disposed of with liberty reserved to the petitioners-defendants to approach the learned trial Court, for needful.
This petition stands disposed of. Pending applications, if any shall also stands disposed of.