1. This revision petition is directed against order dated 05.03.2018 passed by Civil Judge, Dungarpur, whereby, the application filed by the petitioners under Order VII, Rule 11(d) CPC has been rejected.

2. The respondent-plaintiff filed a suit for declaration, permanent & mandatory injunction against the petitioners and also impleaded the Registrar Societies and the State Government through Collector as party defendants.

3. The petitioners filed application under Order VII, Rule 11 CPC, inter alia, questioning the maintainability of the suit in absence of notice under Section 80 CPC and a reference was made to provisions of Section 143 of the Co-operative Societies Act, 1965 (‘the Act’).

4. Reply to the application was filed contesting the averments made therein and it was submitted that the application under Section 80(2) CPC has been filed with the suit and leave has been granted by the Court.

5. The trial court after hearing the parties, came to the conclusion that permission in this regard was granted by this Court on 09.02.2017 and thereafter the suit has been registered. The Court was also of the opinion that as the relief claimed in the plaint essentially did not pertain to defendant Nos. 4 & 5 and they were merely proforma parties, even otherwise, the provisions have no application and, consequently, rejected the application.

6. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that the trial court committed error in coming to the conclusion that permission under Section 80(2) CPC has already been granted. A copy of the order-sheet dated 09.02.2017 has been produced on record to indicate the nature of leave granted. Further submissions have been made with reference to the averments made in the plaint that specific allegations have been made against defendant Nos.4 & 5 and the relief has also been claimed against them and, therefore, it cannot be said that the provisions of Section 80 CPC would have no application and/or that the trial court had already granted permission in this regard. It was prayed that the revision petition be allowed, the order impugned be set aside and the plaint be rejected.

7. Learned counsel for the respondents supported the order impugned. It was submitted that the petitioners have no locus standi to question the compliance/non-compliance of Section 80 CPC. Further submissions have been made that by order dated 09.02.2017 permission has already been granted by the trial court and, therefore, the objections raised in this regard have no substance.

8. Reliance has been placed on judgment in C Arjun Rao v. Dr. T. Ramamohana Rao & Anr. : 2003 (4) ALD 450.

9. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and have perused the material available on record.

10. From the averments made in the plaint, specifically para 7 as well as relief claimed, apparently it cannot be said that defendant Nos.4 & 5 were mere proforma parties.

11. A look at the order-sheet dated 09.02.2017 also indicates that an order has been passed in a wholly mechanical manner as the same reads as follows:-

^^-------/kkjk 80 lh0ih0lh ckn vuqefr ntZ jft- gksosA**

12. The provisions of Section 80(2) CPC requires ‘leave of the Court’ for maintaining a plaint without serving a notice as required by Sub-section (1). Provision for grant of leave, wherever they appear in any statute, envisage that if a leave is granted, the order should reflect application of mind by the Court to the requirements of the Section, however, the order passed by the trial court is wholly cryptic and does not reflect any application of mind. The above aspect is also fortified from the observations made in the order impugned wherein the Court has come to the conclusion that defendant Nos.4 & 5 were merely proforma parties. If in the opinion of the Court, defendant Nos.4 & 5 were mere proforma parties, there was no necessity to grant leave.

13. However, the submissions made by learned counsel for the respondents, pertaining to lack of l