K.A. Mohamed Shafi, J.

The 26th counter petitioner in LA. 1528/2000 in O.P. 156/98 on the file of the District Court, Thiruvananthapuram has preferred this Revision Petition challenging the order dated 28.8.2000. That LA. was filed by the petitioners in the O.P. to direct the respondents to produce the documents or the certified copies before the court as called for in the LA.

2. The above O.P. is filed by the respondents herein seeking leave to file the suit against the counter petitioners in the O.P. under S.92 of the C.P.C. While the O.P. was pending consideration before the court the petitioners in the O.P. - respondents herein filed the above petition before the lower court under O. XI R.14 and Ss.141 and 151 of the C.P.C. to direct the respondents in the O.P. to produce the documents mentioned in the petition. Though the respondents objected the LA. as premature since no leave is granted by the court under S.92 of the CPC to institute the suit and as such no suit in fact is pending before the court, the lower court allowed the LA. stating that there is no harm in ordering production of the original documents or their certified copies in this case. Hence the 26th respondent in the O.P. has preferred this Revision Petition before this Court challenging that order.

3. By reading the impugned order it would appear that the lower court allowed the LA. treating the above petition filed under O. XI R.14 of the CPC on par with the application filed under O. XL R.1 of the CPC to appoint a receiver as it has been held that receiver can be appointed even before granting leave to institute the suit under S.92 of the CPC.

4. The counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that even though an application in LA. 1350/99 filed by the respondents for appointment of a receiver is pending in the above O.P., there is absolutely no reference either in the affidavit filed in support of the petition or in the petition to link the same with the receiver application.

5. The counsel for the respondents, petitioners in the O.P. submitted that the above O.P. seeking leave to file the suit under S.92 of the C.P.C. was filed in the year 1998 and the court issued notice to the parties. Accordingly some of the respondents appeared and filed counter. Therefore, the lower court has to adjudicate the issue as to whether leave should be granted or not. It is also submitted that in order to decide whether leave should be granted or not, only a prima facie case need be made out by the respondents. The court can require the parties to produce documents in order to examine whether leave can be granted or not. It is further contended that even though in Para 19 of the O.P. specific allegations of misconduct are made against the respondents therein and leave could have been granted by the court even ex pane against the respondents in the O.P„ the lower court found it necessary to issue notice to the respondents in the O.P. in pursuance of which some of the respondents have appeared and filed counter. Therefore, the lower court has to pass a considered order after hearing the parties. It is also submitted that since no procedure with regard to the enquiry for grant of leave under S.92 of the C.P.C. is laid down in the C.P.C'.. the proceedings before the court should be treated as the proceedings in the suit as provided under S.141 of the CPC. Therefore, according to the respondents, all proceedings in a civil suit will apply to proceedings seeking leave under S.92 of the CPC also. Therefore, according to them, all the provisions of the CPC including O. XI will apply to the above proceedings and as such the impugned order passed by the lower court directing the revision petitioner herein and the other respondents in the O.P. to produce the documents under O. XI R.14 of the CPC is perfectly legal and valid.

6. In support of the above contention the counsel fors the respondents relied upon several decisions of the Supreme Court and other High Courts. One o