The court affirmed that once leave under Section 92 of the C.P.C. is granted and confirmed, it cannot be revoked without merit, highlighting procedural preclusion against repetitive challenges.

JUDGMENT :

A.C.BEHERA, J.

This revision under Section 115 of the C.P.C., 1908 has been filed by the petitioners against the Opposite Parties praying for setting aside the impugned order dated 26.12.2023 passed in C.S. No.01 of 2018 by the learned District Judge, Nuapada.

2. The petitioners and the Opposite Parties in this revision are the defendants and plaintiffs respectively in the suit vide C.S. No.01 of 2018 under Section 92 of the C.P.C., 1908 pending in the court of learned District Judge, Nuapada.

3. The factual backgrounds of this revision, which prompted the petitioners(defendants in the suit vide C.S. No.01 of 2018) for filing of the same is that, the Opposite Parties in this revision being the plaintiffs filed the suit vide C.S. No.01 of 2018 under Section 92 of the C.P.C., 1908 in the court of the learned District Judge, Nuapada against the defendants (petitioners in this revision) along with CMA No.3 of 2017 praying for granting leave to the plaintiffs for the institution of that suit under Section 92 of the C.P.C., 1908 against the defendants.

After hearing from both the sides in CMA No.3 of 2017, the learned District Judge, Nuapada allowed that CMA No.3 of 2017 on dated 16.04.2018 under Section 92 of the C.P.C., 1908 of the plaintiffs granting the plaintiffs leave to institute the suit vide C.S. No.01 of 2018 under Section 92 of the C.P.C., 1908 against the defendants.

On the basis of the said order passed on dated 16.04.2018 in CMA No.3 of 2017, the suit of the plaintiffs vide C.S. No.01 of 2018 was instituted against the defendants under Section 92 of the C.P.C., 1908.

4. On being dissatisfied with the said leave granted to the plaintiffs on dated 16.04.2018 under Section 92 of the C.P.C., 1908 by the leaned District Judge, Nuapada in CMA No.3 of 2017, the defendants challenged that order dated 16.04.2018 filing CMP No.839 of 2018 in the High Court of Orissa against the plaintiffs.

After hearing from both the sides, that CMP No.839 of 2018 filed by the defendants in C.S. No.01 of 2018 was dismissed on dated 17.02.2022 by the High Court confirming the leave for institution of the suit vide C.S. No.01 of 2018 granted on dated 16.04.2018 under Section 92 of the C.P.C., 1908 by the learned District Judge, Nuapada in favour of the plaintiffs assigning the reasons that,

“there is no difficulty either in maintaining the application under Section 92 of the C.P.C. or even in allowing such application. The High Court finds that, there is no infirmity of the impugned order. Consequently, CMP filed by the defendants is dismissed.”

5. After dismissal of CMP No.839 of 2018 of the defendants on contest in the High Court on dated 17.02.2022, the defendants again approached learned District Judge, Nuapada by filing a petition on dated 03.01.2023 under Section 151 of the C.P.C., 1908 in the suit vide C.S. No.01 of 2018 praying for revocation of the leave granted on dated 16.04.2018 by the learned District Judge, Nuapada in favour of the plaintiffs under Section 92 of the C.P.C., 1908.

After hearing from both the sides, the learned District Judge, Nuapada rejected to the petition under Section 151 of the C.P.C., 1908 dated 03.01.2023 of the defendants as per order dated 26.12.2023.

6. On being aggrieved with the said order dated 26.12.2023 passed by the learned District Judge, Nuapada in C.S. No.01 of 2018 against the defendants, the defendants challenged the same by filing this revision being the petitioners against the plaintiffs arraying the plaintiffs as Opposite Parties.

7. I have already heard from the learned counsels of both the sides.

8. During the course of hearing, the learned counsel for the pet