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 Church, also known as Piravom Valiapally and its assets described in the plaint schedule are to be administered under the Constitution of the Malankara Orthodox Syrian Church originally passed on 26/12/1934 and was amended subsequently under the Metropolitans, Priests and other religious dignitaries and office bearers appointed and functioning under the said Constitution.

B. To declare that defendants 29 and 30 have the right and authority to see that the plaint church and its assets are managed by proper persons, the funds and other assets of the church are properly utilised and accounted by persons in management.

C. To declare that defendants 31 and 32 cannot exercise any Episcopal authority or function or any sort of right over the plaint church and its assets or in any manner interfere in the administration of the affairs of the plaint church.

D. Restraining defendants 1 to 18 and 26 to 28 and 31 and 32, their supporters and partisans by a permanent injunction from obstructing in any manner whatsoever defendants 29, 30 and defendants 19 to 21 or other dignitaries or persons appointed under the Malankara Church Constitution from conducting religious services or from exercising their ecclesiastical and other functions, in the said church or to appoint a Receiver.

E. To declare the rights of the plaintiffs calling upon the interim Court administrators, defendants 1 to 15 or whomsoever may succeed them in their office to hand over their management or the plaint church and its assets to those whomsoever be appointed under the said Constitution of the Malankara Orthodox Syrian Church in order to administer the same.

F. Directing the contesting defendants to pay the plaintiffs the cost of this suit.

G. Granting such other reliefs as may be necessary to preserve the plaint Piravom Valiapally as a constituent Parish church of the Malankara Orthodox Syrian Church."

Admittedly, no leave under Section 92 of the Code was sought for or any leave was granted expressly by the Subordinate Judge's Court or the I Additional District Court, Ernakulam in the matter.

4. On 08/01/2002, the plaint was amended by deleting reliefs B, C and D contained in the original plaint and by substituting reliefs B, C, D and D1 as noted in the amended plaint. The said reliefs are:

"B. To declare that the defendants 54 & 55 are having the right and authority to see that the plaint church and its assets are managed by a proper Managing Committee elected under the Presidentship of the 55th defendant under the provisions of the 1934 Constitution.

C. To declare that the defendants 31 & 32 or any person claiming under them especially the 53rd defendant cannot exercise any Episcopal or spiritual authority or function or any sort of right over the plaint church and its assets or in any manner interfere