K. Ravichandra Babu, J.

1. Application No. 4580 of 2015 is filed for revoking the leave granted in Application No. 3335 of 2013 in C.S. No. 518 of 2013 dated 30.07.2013.

2. Application No. 5513 of 2015 is filed to strike out the name of the second plaintiff from the array of plaintiffs in C.S. No. 518 of 2013.

3. The applicant in both these applications is the sixth defendant in the main suit. The respondents 1 and 2 herein in both the applications are the plaintiffs. They filed the above suit under Order 7 Rule 1 C.P.C. read with Section 92 of C.P.C., seeking for the following reliefs:

"i) to frame a scheme for the proper conduct of the affairs of the first defendant Trust;

ii) to remove the defendants 3 to 11 from the post of trusteeship and appoint an administrator in the interregnum, pending framing of a scheme by this Court;

iii) to direct the defendants to render true and proper accounts in respect of the first defendant trust including that of the second defendant from the year 2001 till date of taking of accounts; and

iv) to reinstate the first plaintiff to the post of Vice President of the second defendant and allow the first plaintiff to discharge his duties as trustee of the first defendant trust."

4. Before filing the above suit, the plaintiffs filed two applications, one under section 92 C.P.C. in Application No. 3335 of 2015 and another under clause 12 of the Letters Patent in Application No. 3334 of 2013, seeking leave of this court to file the above said suit.

5. This court by an order dated 30.07.2013 granted leave in both the above applications, of course, by an ex-parte order. The second defendant filed two applications in Application Nos. 3559 and 3560 of 2013 for revocation of leave granted by this Court. The present applicant who is the sixth defendant in the suit, was arrayed as the seventh respondent in the above said applications seeking for revocation of the leave.

6. This Court, after hearing both parties and considering various aspects of the matter in detail, dismissed both the said applications by an order dated 20.02.2015. Challenging the same, appeals have been filed in O.S.A. Nos. 68 and 69 of 2015 before the Division Bench of this Court and the same are said to be pending without any interim order.

7. Now, the sixth defendant in the suit has filed the present applications once again seeking for revocation of leave granted under section 92C.P.C. In fact, the very same applicant/sixth defendant filed another application in A. No. 4579 of 2015 seeking for revocation of the leave granted in Application No. 3334 of 2013 dated 30.07.2013 under clause 12 of the Letters Patent. When the said application was taken up for hearing on 14.09.2015, the learned senior counsel Mrs. Chitra Sampath appearing for the applicant/sixth defendant fairly submitted that similar application filed by the second defendant in Application No. 3559 of 2015 raising very same grounds came to be dismissed by this Court on 20.02.2015 and an appeal filed against the said order in O.S.A. No. 68 of 2015 is pending. Considering the above submissions and considering the fact that the similar application filed by the second defendant raising the very same grounds in respect of clause 12 of the Letters Patent came to be rejected by this court on 20.02.2015, this court found that the above Application No. 4579 of 2013 cannot be sustained and the same has to be dismissed by following the earlier order dated 20.02.2015. Accordingly, the said application was dismissed by this court on 14.09.2015.

8. Even though it was contended by the learned senior counsel appearing for the present application that the order passed by this court earlier on 20.02.2015 in similar application concerning clause 12 of the Letters Patent covers the application seeking revocation of leave in Application No. 4579 of 2015, she however, submitted that the present application viz., A. No. 4580 of 2015 concerning the leave granted under section 92CPC is to be heard on meri