BABURAJ AND ORS Vs. DEVARAJAN AND ORS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision is directed against the impugned order dated 14/07/2008 passed in I.A.No.3443 of 2006 in O.S.No. 485 of 2008 on the files of Principal Sub Court, Kollam. The revision petitioners are the defendant Nos.2, 4, 8, 9 and 13 in O.P.No.11 of 2007 on the files of Principal Sub Court. The above I.A. No.3090 of 2008 was filed for reviewing the order dated 14/07/2008 in I.A.No. 3443 of 2006 granting leave of the court to file a suit under Section 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short the 'CPC'). The respondents filed the above suit numbered as O.S.No.485 of 2008 before the Sub Court under Section 92 of the CPC, seeking a decree to settle the scheme for Ozhukupara Ponkanvila Devi Temple situated in Paravur village and also for declaration, cancellation of document and also for other ancillary reliefs. The Suit was filed on 17/11/2006 and along with suit I.A.No.3443 of 2006 was filed seeking leave under Section 92(g) of the CPC for institution of the suit. After hearing both parties, trial court allowed the O.P. on 14/07/2008 and the suit was numbered as O.S.No.485 of 2008. The petitioners had raised several objections against granting leave; but trial court didn't consider any of the grounds but only passed a non speaking order.

(2.) Aggrieved by the order granting leave, the petitioner filed I.A.No.3090 of 2008 seeking review of the order. But the trial court did not consider any of the valid grounds; but only considered a minor and less important ground very conveniently and dismissed the application for review of the order granting leave. The trial court has taken the view that the ground on which the application for review was filed is that the order granting leave was passed again on I.A. which was non existing. As a matter of fact, the revision petitioners had urged several other grounds on merits of the matter; but the same were not considered by the trial court. The trial court ought to have decided the matter on merits by a reasoned order, particularly when defendants entered appearance and filed a very strong objection.

(3.) In short, the argument advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that without considering the aim and object of granting leave provided under Section 92 (1) of the CPC, the court below granted leave. Though, aggrieved by the order granting leave, the petitioner had preferred a review petition, the same was also dismissed without adverting to the grounds raised in the review petition also. In view of the above submission, I am of the view that the real challenge is against the basic order passed under Section 92 (1) of CPC granting leave.