JUDGMENT K.P. Balachandran, J. 1.Heard the counsel for the petitioners. 2.The grievance of the petitioners/defendants in OS 85/2009 on the file of the Munsiff's Court, Ernakulam is that the learned Munsiff has granted leave to the respondents/ plaintiffs to institute the suit aforesaid under Section 91 (1 )(b) of the CPC without hearing the petitioners and without applying his mind to the question as to whether the facts of the case really attracts Section 91 of the Civil Procedure Code. 3.The leave under Section 91(1)(b) on a motion made by two or more persons to prevent wrongful act though can be granted initially by the Court by an interim order, is not leave so as to prosecute the suit if grant of such leave is objected to by the defendants raising serious objections to such grant of leave. In that event, it is for the Court which granted initial leave to hear the defendants as well and then decide as to whether the leave granted is to be made absolute or is to be vacated/revoked. 4.Counsel for the petitioners submit that they came to know of the leave so granted only on receipt of notice on the injunction petition as also summons in the suit and that the Court below is proceeding to hear the injunction matter as that is being pressed by the counsel for the respondents/plaintiffs. 5.The petitioners shall be at liberty to file objection if any objecting to the grant of leave under Section 91(1 )(b) of the CPC. The objection shall be filed positively in two days. On such objection being filed the Court below shall consider the objections and pass appropriate orders whether making the leave absolute or vacating/revoking the leave initially granted and shall proceed with the suit only in case the leave is made absolute as it is not as if any two persons can approach the Court; get leave under Section 91(1)(b) CPC and obtain orders as they please, without affording an opportunity to the respondents to show cause that it is not a fit case where leave under Section 91 (1 )(b) has to be granted. 6.This CRP is thus disposed of without notice to the respondents and at the admission stage, giving the above directions as this Court is not passing any considered order detrimental to the respondents, but is only interfering with an order passed by the Court below without following the procedure prescribed under Section 91 (1 )(b) CPC and appreciating the matter in the proper perspective so as to rectify the illegality.