JUDGMENT :

1. In this case, Mr. H.M.B. Sinha, learned Counsel for the respondents has raised a preliminary objection in opposition to the motion to admit this revision to hearing. He says that this revision is not maintainable. Mr. Sinha submits that the order impugned is an order granting leave under Section 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short, ‘CPC’), which is revisable. According to him, it is almost an administrative order and a matter between the applicant for leave and the Court. Therefore, the revisionists, who are opposite parties nos.4 and 5 to the Application under Section 92 CPC, are not entitled to maintain this revision. They can contest the suit, that comes into existence upon grant of leave by the order impugned.

2. Reliance has been placed by the learned Counsel for the respondents upon the decision of the Supreme Court in Ghat Talab Kaulan Wala v. Baba Gopal Dass Chela Surti Dass (Dead) by LR Ram Niwas, (2020) 13 SCC 50 and particularly upon the decision of their Lordships of the Supreme Court in B.S. Adityan and others v. B. Ramachandran Adityan and others, (2004) 9 SCC 720.

3. Learned Counsel has also drawn the attention of this Court to a decision of our C