S. B. SAKRIKAR, J. ( 1 ) BY the Court. Applicant/defendant has directed this revision against order dated. 9. 8. 2000 passed by the 6th Additional District Judge, Indore in c. S. 12-a/98 thereby directing registration of the suit on the application of non-applicant No. 1 to 9 (plaintiffs) in place of M. J. C. 12/98 registered on the application under Section 94 of the CPC for grant of urgent relief. ( 2 ) FACTS of the case in brief are that Non-applicants 1 to 9 (plaintiffs) have filed an application under Section 94 of the CPC for grant of urgent relief of injunction without filing the suit as the statutory period contemplated under section 80 (1), CPC r/w Section 94 of the M. P. Co-operative Societies Act was not complete. In reply to the application filed under Section 94 an objection was raised on behalf of the petitioner that alongwith said application, a draft plaint is not filed. In reply to aforesaid objection on behalf of non-applicant 1 to 9 (plaintiffs) a draft plaint was filed in the trial Court on 28. 9. 1990 and the case was thereafter heard on the application filed under Section 94 of CPC. The said application is still pending and no orders have been passed as yet. An application was filed on behalf non-applicant plaintiffs under Section 151. CPC for registration of civil suit on the basis of draft plaint filed by non-applicant plaintiffs on 18. 9. 1998 for converting MJC into regular civil suit. Learned trial Judge by the impugned order allowed the said application and registered regular civil suit on the basis of draft plaint filed on behalf of plaintiffs on 28. 9. 1998 during the pendency of application filed under Section 94 CPC. Aggrieved of the said order of trial Court present applicant/defendant has filed this revision. ( 3 ) I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties and also perused the record. ( 4 ) SHRI G. M. Chaphakar, appearing for the petitioner has contended that only on the basis of filing of the draft plaint, after filing of the application under section 94 of CPC, the plaint can not be registered as civil suit in place of pending MJC registered on the basis of application filed under Section 94 CPC. ( 4 ) SHRI G. M. Chaphakar, appearing for the petitioner has contended that only on the basis of filing of the draft plaint, after filing of the application under section 94 of CPC, the plaint can not be registered as civil suit in place of pending MJC registered on the basis of application filed under Section 94 CPC. Learned Counsel contended that as the statutory period as contemplated under Section 80 (1), CPC was not completed when the draft plaint was filed, a suit can not be registered on the basis of such application. He also contended that on the behalf of non-applicant/plaintiffs no application under section 80 (2) of CPC was filed and leave was obtained for institution of the suit before expiry of the period of limitation as contemplated under Section 80 (1) of the CPC as such, trial Court has committed an error in converting mjc into regular civil suit on the basis of the draft plaint which was filed prior to the expiry of statutory period under Section 80 (1) of the CPC. ( 5 ) AS against this, learned counsel appearing for respondents submitted that it is true that a leave was hot obtained by the non-applicant under Section 80 (2) of CPC. However, during pendency of proceedings under Section 94 of cpc on the objection of the applicant a draft plaint alongwith Court fees required on the plaint was filed before the trial Court and after disposal of proceedings under Section 94, CPC and on completion of the statutory period under Section 80 (1) of CPC on the application of the plaintiffs, regular civil suit was registered. As such, in view of the aforesaid facts the impugned order of the trial Court cannot be considered to be illegal or without jurisdiction requiring any interference in exercise of Section 115 of the CPC. ( 6 ) CONSIDERING submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, and on perusal of the record it emerged that in view of the provisions of Section 80 (2) of CPC, if the leave for institution of a suit was obtained, by filing an application in that case the draft plaint which is filed alongwith application for urgent relief, shall be converted into regular civil suit on expiry of the period as contemplaced under Section 80 (1) of the CPC. In this case no such leave was obtained even then a draft plaint which was filed subsequently during the pendency of the proceedings under Section 94 CPC, for converting MJC into regular civil suit. It is pertinent to note that on the date of registration of civil suit in view of the cause of action mentioned in the draft plaint, the plaintiffs suit was within limitation. As such, by registration of the civil suit, on the basis of draft plaint on expiry of period two months as contemplated under section 80 (1) CPC. no prejudice is caused to the applicant/defendant. In view of the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner, he submitted that court should have adopted the procedure that the MJC on expiry of period of two months should have been closed and thereafter on presentation of the plaint, a civil suit should have been registered. Strictly speaking that procedure may be correct but as no prejudice is caused to the defendant, in view of the procedure adopted by the trial Court and the suit filed on behalf of the non-applicant plaintiffs, the date of the registration of the plaint, is within limitation; as such, even if some irregularity in the procedure is caused, no interference is required in exercise of powers under Section 115 of CPC. Consequently, this revision petition is devoid of any merit and substance and the same is accordingly dismissed without any order as to costs. Petition dismissed. .