B. KEMAL PASHA, J.

1. (i) Can the leave under Section 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure , 1908 (hereinafter referred to as the Code) be dispensed with on the inaction of the defendant in challenging it?

(ii) Whether acquiescence can be pleaded for sustaining a suit under Section 92 of the Code when leave under Section 92 of the Code was not obtained through an express order?

(iii) Whether leave had to be obtained under Section 92 of the Code for the institution of OS No. 6/1985 as a condition precedent.

These are the questions that come up for consideration at present in these appeals and RP No. 664/2013.

2. Originally, the plaint in the suit in question was presented on 27/01/1984 before the Subordinate Judge's Court, Ernakulam. After curing some defects, the suit was received in file and the same was instituted as OS No. 41/1984 on 06/02/1984. Later, the suit was transferred to the Additional District Court, Ernakulam being the special Court for dealing with church cases, where the suit was renumbered as OS No. 6/1985.

3. Later, the plaint was amended. Prior to the amendment, the following reliefs were sought for:--

"A. To declare that the Piravom St. Mary's Orthodox Syrian Ch