The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of Section 92 of CPC, the nature of the order granting leave, and the requirement of notice and reasoned order. The judgment also emphasizes the need for expeditious final disposal of the suit.

1. Petitioner-defendant has challenged order dated 14-1-1993 passed by Sub Judge First Class, Mohindergarh, granting leave at the fag end of proceedings in the suit filed by the plaintiffs contesting respondents Nos. 1 to 15 under Section 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure in this Civil Revision under Sec. 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 (hereinafter referred to as CPC).

2. Plaintiffs had filed the suit on 9-3-1988, for removal of the defendant as trustee/Manager and for rendition of account etc. on the ground that he was misusing the trust property.

3. In his written statement, petitioner-defendant raised the preliminary objection that the plaintiffs had filed the suit without obtaining leave of the Court under Section 92, CPC.On merits, he denied all the allegations levelled against him. He also pleaded that the suit filed by the plaintiffs was mis-conceived and mala fide, and that their conduct was not in the interest and welfare of the trust. Plaintiffs filed replication, controverting the pleas taken in the written statement and reiterating the case set up in the plaint.

4. On the pleadings of the parties, by order dated 4-10-1988, following issues were framed :-

1. Whether the disputed property is the property of a chariable Trust and the parties are the trustees, if so, to what effect ? OPP 2.Whether the plaintiffs have no locus standi to file the present suit ? OPD 3.Whether the suit is not maintainable in the present form ? OPD 4.Whether, the plaintiffs are estopped from filing the present suit by their own act and conduct ? OPD 5.Whether the defendants are entitled to special cost ? OPD 6.Relief.

5. On the above issues, parties proceeded to lead evidence. It was only at the fag end of the proceedings, when the suit was fixed for rebuttal evidence, plaintiffs moved the application seeking leave of the Court of the plea that formal order granting permission to institute the suit was not passed as the application for that purpose, somehow, was not filed earlier. Defendant opposed the application, inter alia, on the ground that grant of leave was a condition precedent, and in the absence of the same having been obtained, the suit was not maintainable, and it was liable to be dismissed. The application has been allowed by the impunged order dated 14-1-1993.

6. Relevant portion contained in paragraphs 5, 6 and 7 of the impunged order dated 14-1-1993, is reproduced below :-

"5. Admittedly, the suit was filed in the Court of learned District Judge, Narnaul, which is the principal civil Court of original jurisdiction as provided under Sec. 24 of the Punjab Courts Act. It is also true that at the time of institution of the suit, no application, as required under Section 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure seeking permission of the Court/leave of the Court, was filed. The suit, is however, being resisted by the defendant throughout and both the parties have concluded their evidence and today the case is at the final stage and has been fixed for rebuttal evidence of the plaintiff. Arguing on behalf of the applicant/plaintiff Sh. M.S.Yadav has placed reliance upon Prithipal Singh V/s. Magh Singh, AIR 1982 Punj and Hay 137. Wherein, it has been laid down by the Hon ble High Court that at the time of institution of the suit, the Court does not have to write a reasoned order. It is further held that the Court does not even have to give a notice to the defendant of an application as the order granting leave is an order of administrative nature. In support of his contention that the grant of leave of the Court is condition precedent, without which the suit cannot proceed, Sh. K.L.Yadav, has placed his reliance upon Dr. Ram Parkash V/s. Dayal Chand 1985 Har Rent R 122 : (AIR 1986 Punj And Har 237) and Mahant Harnam Singh V/s. Gurdial Singh, AIR 1967 SC 1415. 6.After hearing both the parties at length and going through the case law referred to above and relied upon by learned counsel for the parties and in the facts and cir