1. The short question for consideration is this second appeal filed by the plaintiff is whether the leave of Court required under S.80 (2) of the Code of Civil Procedure for instituting a suit without notice under sub-section (1) could only be on the basis of an express order on a separate application filed for that purpose. Facts of the case and contentions of the parties are not relevant for deciding the appeal. Both the trial court and the appellate court held that a prayer in the plaint is not sufficient and a separate application for leave and an order granting leave are the prerequisites for the maintainability of the suit. Therefore without even considering whether it is a suit to obtain an urgent or immediate relief and whether insistence on the compliance of subsection (1) will defeat the purpose of the suit, maintainability of the suit was found against for the simple reason that no application was filed for leave. That finding came only when the suit was finally disposed of after evidence. Even though the trial court considered the rival contentions also on the merits, the appellate court dismissed the appeal solely on the ground that the suit is not maintain