B.S. ADITYAN AND ORS. versus B. RAMACHANDRAN ADITYAN AND ORS.

B.S. ADITYAN AND ORS. versus B. RAMACHANDRAN ADITYAN AND ORS.

Notice to defendants before granting leave under Section 92 CPC is not a legal necessity but a rule of caution; absence of such notice does not invalidate suit. An appeal lies against refusal to grant leave under Section 104(1)(ffa) CPC, and orders granting leave under Section 92 CPC are only enabling and do not determine the parties’ rights, thus Supreme Court interference is not warranted.

Parties
Appellant: B.S. Adityan; Respondent: B. Ramachandran Adityan
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
16 April 2004
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Division Bench Judgment of the Madras High Court
Outcome
Appeals dismissed
Legal Topics
Leave to Institute Suit Under Section 92 CPC, Notice to Defendants Before Granting Leave, Appeal Against Refusal to Grant Leave Under Section 92 CPC
Civil Procedure Leave to Institute Suit Under Section 92 CPC Notice to Defendants Before Granting Leave Appeal Against Refusal to Grant Leave Under Section 92 CPC

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

B.S. Adityan

Appellant

B. Ramachandran Adityan

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Division Bench Judgment of the Madras High Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Is notice to defendants mandatory before granting leave under Section 92 CPC?
  2. 2 Is an appeal permissible against refusal to grant leave under Section 92 CPC?
  3. 3 Should Supreme Court interfere with orders granting leave under Section 92 CPC via Article 136?

Ratio Decidendi

Notice to defendants before granting leave under Section 92 CPC is not a legal necessity but a rule of caution; absence of such notice does not invalidate suit. An appeal lies against refusal to grant leave under Section 104(1)(ffa) CPC, and orders granting leave under Section 92 CPC are only enabling and do not determine the parties’ rights, thus Supreme Court interference is not warranted.

Court Disposition

Appeals dismissed

Orders

  • Leave granted under Section 92 CPC stands.
  • High Court order upheld.