K V JOSE Vs. JOMON JOSEPH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Common questions arise in all these appeals. Aggrieved by the orders passed in four different suits by the First Additional District Judge, Ernakulam, revoking the leave granted under Section 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (in short, the Code) and striking off the suits from the file, the plaintiffs have come up in these appeals.

(2.) Heard the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellants and learned counsel for the contesting respondent.

(3.) Four suits were instituted before the Sub Court, Ottappalam, on various dates. Along with the suit, interlocutory applications were also filed seeking leave to institute the suits under Section 92 of the Code. As seen from the impugned orders, all the suits were numbered initially and thereafter, leave was granted on the interlocutory applications. For example, in O.S.No.91 of 2012 on the file of the Sub Court, Ottappalam (which is renumbered as O.S.No.9 of 2015 before the District Court, Ernakulam), the suit was instituted on 9.2012. I.A.No.1009 of 2012, filed under Section 92(1) of the Code, was allowed only on 12.2012 by granting a leave for institution of the suit. Same is the situation in all the other cases. In fact, after institution only, the leave was granted under Section 92 of the Code.