1. Two persons filed a suit for restraining the appellant (defendant) from conducting retreading business in a place situated close to the residence of the plaintiffs, as the conduct of the business amounts to public nuisance. The suit was resisted, among other contentions, on the ground that it is bad for want of valid leave under S.91 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short 'the Code'). The trial court upheld the aforesaid contention and dismissed the suit. The District Court, in appeal, reversed the finding and held that the plaintiffs bad obtained leave, though ex parte, on the date of filing of the suit which is valid under law. Accordingly the trial court was directed to restore the suit and proceed to dispose it of in accordance with law. The said judgment of the District Court is assailed in this appeal filed by the defendant.

2. Facts necessary for this appeal are the following: The suit is for declaration that the retreading business carried on by the defendant causes public nuisance and for restraining the defendant by a perpetual injunction from carrying on the said business in the present premises. The suit was filed on 24-10-1984. Along with the plaint, t