NARAYANSA Vs. RAMAKRISHN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a revision petition filed by defendants 2 to 5 assailing the order of the Court below granting permission to sue the defendants in representative capacity.

(2.) THE facts of the case are that the plaintiffs filed a suit for declaration, declaring that the C. T. S. No. 3477 of Hubli is part of street or lane and also for permanent injunction against the defendants 2 to 5 not to proceed with the construction over C. T. S. Nos. 2616-B and 3477 as per building Plan No. HDC/bb II/28/arb/2b/pwd, dated 24-8-1995 and also for such other reliefs. Learned Counsel assailing the order of the court below permitting the plaintiffs to sue the defendants in representative capacity has filed this revision.

(3.) LEARNED Counsel for the petitioners contended that as per Order I, rule 8 read with Order 7, Rule 4, Civil Procedure Code of Karnataka amendment, the Court before granting permission ought to have issued a notice to the defendants 2 to 5. It is secondly contended that who are the parties, who are affected is not specifically stated and their number is also not mentioned. Therefore, on that count itself, the permission granted is liable to be set aside.