Case Title: Sadasivan & Anr. v. Sadasivan Nair & Ors.
On Tuesday, the Kerala High Court ruled that any dispute over whether a lawsuit fits under Section 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure (C.P.C.) must be resolved before the trial.
A suit under Section 92 can only be pursued with the court's permission, according to Justice A. Badharudeen. If the parties are separated until the trial is over and it is ultimately determined that the suit requires leave, the trial will be for nothing because the suit will be automatically dismissed for lack of leave.
The rejection of an application to determine whether the original lawsuit they filed is maintainable in light of Section 92 CPC enraged the petitioners in this case. In the lawsuit, the petitioners asked for a prohibitory order to stop the defendants from forcibly seizing control of the Alara Sree Bhadrakali Temple in Perumpazhuthoor and from forcibly preventing the building of Sreekovil as part of temple renovation.
According to the court, the question was not "preliminary" and could not be resolved without considering the case's specific facts.
Advocates V.G. Arun, Indulekha Joseph, V. Jaya Ragi, and Neeraj Narayan argued on the petitioner's side that just the averments in the plaint needed to be examined and that the issue was merely one of law as to whether an action would fall under the purview of Section 92 CPC.
The High Court cited the rulings in Fr. John Jacob & Ors. v. Fr. N.I. Paulose & Ors. and Sreenarayana Vidya Mandir Trust & Anr. v. Unnikrishnan & Ors. (2022), where it was determined that the plaint averments alone need to be considered when determining whether to grant leave under Section 92(1) of the CPC. It was added that if there is a disagreement over whether the lawsuit falls under Section 92 of the C.P.C. and it is determined that the lawsuit requires leave, the involved party should be allowed to file the lawsuit with a leave petition to the appropriate court, and the trial can only proceed after getting the leave.
In light of this, the Court determined that the issue of whether the action is maintainable under Section 92 of CPC in the current instance needed to be resolved before the trial and stated that this had to be done by taking into account the plaint averments and nature of the reliefs.
The ruling of the Munsiff Court was subsequently overturned, and the Munsiff was instructed to hear the aforementioned matter as the first issue, decide it, and make merit-based orders.
Respondents were represented by attorneys Ajit G. Anjarlekar, G.P. Shinod, Vinod Raveendranath, Meena, and Govind Padmanabhan.