( 1 ) THIS Civil Revision Petition is directed against the order dated 24-6-2002 in i. A. No. 626 of 1996 in O. S. No. 30 of 1995 on the file of additional Senior Civil Judge (Fast track Court), Gudivada. ( 2 ) PETITIONER herein is the defendant No. 2 in the suit. ( 3 ) FOR the sake of convenience parties to the Civil Revision Petition are referred to as they were arrayed before the trial Court. ( 4 ) THE factual background which is not in dispute is that O. S. No. 30 of 1995 was filed by the respondents/plaintiffs for removal of the present Persons-in-Management of the plaint schedule property belonging to Public charitable Trust viz. , Sri Rama Kamma Beeda vidyardhi Uchita Bhojana Hostel Sangam and fortrainingschemefordue administration of the Trust and for other reliefs. The said suit was filed under Section 92 of the Code of civil Procedure. Section 92 postulates that suit can be filed only with the leave of the court. ( 5 ) IT is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner /2nd defendant that leave was granted to the plaintiffs to institute the suit without there being any notice to the defendants. Aggrieved thereby, C. R. P. No. 2023 of 1995 had been filed before this court and the same was dismissed. However, having noticed the Judgment of the Hon ble supreme court in R. M. Narayana Chettiar and another v. N. Lakshmana Chettiar and others, this Court observed that it is open to the petitioner to move the lower Court for revocation of the leave granted and to resist any application for granting any interim relief against him. Consequent thereof, the petitionerfiledl. A. No. 626 of 1996 seeking to revoke and set aside the order granting leave to the plaintiffs to file the suit. The said application had been dismissed by the Court below, applying principles of res judicata, and holding that it is prevented from rescinding its own order after keeping the same pending for six long years. Hence the present Civil revision Petition is filed. ( 6 ) THE note worthy fact is that even this civil Revision Petition is pending admission for more than two (sic. one) and half years. Hence the present Civil revision Petition is filed. ( 6 ) THE note worthy fact is that even this civil Revision Petition is pending admission for more than two (sic. one) and half years. ( 7 ) IT is the contention of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/2nd defendant that if the observation made by the Court below in dismissing I. A. No. 626 of 1996 is not set aside, the petitioner/2nd defendant would be precluded for ever from taking up the plea that the suit is not maintainable without issuing notice to the defendants, contrary to the judgment of the Hon ble Supreme Court reported in R. M. Narayana Chettiar and another v. N. Lakshmanan Chettiar and others. ( 8 ) IN fact, at this stage, particularly when the suit is at the stage of arguments, no useful purpose would be served even if an order is passed either in favour or against eitherof the parties to the Revision. However, this Court is much concerned with the way in which the proceedings in I. A. No. 626 of 1996 as well as in O. S. No. 30 of 1995 have been conducted, more so in keeping I. A. No. 626 of 1996 pending for a long period of six years despite orders of this Court particularly when this Court indicated in the order dated 8-11-1995 while dismissing C. R. P. No. 2023 of 1995 that as and when an application is made by the defendants seeking revocation of the leave granted by the trial Court, the same shall be considered. ( 9 ) IN my considered view, the trial Court did not construe the said order of this Court in right perspective and, on the contrary, i. A. No. 626 of 1996 was dismissed on the ground that principle of resjudicata applies and hence it is prevented from rescinding its own order. ( 10 ) I am further of the view that the ground on which I. A. No. 626 of 1996 was dismissed would only show the naivety of perceptive capability of the Presiding Officerof the Court below. ( 10 ) I am further of the view that the ground on which I. A. No. 626 of 1996 was dismissed would only show the naivety of perceptive capability of the Presiding Officerof the Court below. When this Court while dismissing c. R. P. No. 2023 of 1995 observed that it is open to the petitioner to move the lower court for revocation of the leave granted and to resist any application of granting any interim relief against him the Court below ought to have gone into the merits of the case i. e. , what would be the effect of granting leave and what would have been its adverse impact on the cause of the defendants, and pass appropriate orders. But surprisingly, and perhaps, conveniently, the Court below had invoked the principle of res judicata. This order, in my considered view, demonstrates total lack of sense of responsibility required to be possessed by a Judicial Officer while adjudicating matters of present nature, particularly under the given circumstances. ( 11 ) FOR the aforesaid reasons, the impugned order is liable to be set aside and it is accordingly set aside. ( 12 ) HOWEVER, having regard to the fact that much water had flown in the adjudicatory process of the suit, the Court below is directed to frame an additional issue as regards maintainability of the suit for want of notice to the defendants while granting leave at the time of institution of the suit and decide the said issue along with other issues already framed in the suit, in accordance with law uninfluenced by any of the observations made in the impugned order as well as in the Civil revision petition. ( 13 ) THE Civil Revision petition is accordingly allowed at the stage of admission.