POPURI MUTHAYYA Vs. MALLAMPATI MALLIKHARJUNA RAO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is the 12th defendant in O S. 84 of 1977. The first respondent laid the suit. Sri M Mallikarjuna Rao filed an application under Order 1 Rule 8 for permission to be impleaded as a third plaintiff to the suit. The Court below ordered the I.A. Thus this revision.

(2.) The averments in the plaint are that defendant No. 1 is the father and the second defendant is the son. They are the members of the joint family. The first defendant is the Manager and Karta of the joint family, defendants 3 and 4 are his wife and daughter, 5th defendant is the husband's brother of the 4th defendant. The first defendant as a karta of the joint family and also on his behalf contracted several debts for the family etc. The plaintiffs in the suit are some of the creditors. The defendants 1 to 5 entered into an agreement dated Feb. 5, 1977 in favour of defendants 6 to 9 for alienating certatin lands As a result the plaintiffs laid the suit for a declaration that the contract of sale dated Feb. 5, 1977 is not true and valid and also not binding on the plaintiffs. Subsequently, it would appear that they wanted to withdraw the suit. At that stage the first respondent filed an application to be impleaded eo-nominee as a third plaintiff. His averments in the application are that he is also one of the creditors, but the plaintiffs are not evincing interest. As such he is interested to come on record as a third plaintiff to prosecute the suit on behalf of the general body of the creditors. That application was resisted by the respondents, but was ordered by the court below in the impugned order.

(3.) Sri Y.V.Narayana, the learned Counsel for the petitioner has contended that Order XXIII Rule 3-B and Explanation appended thereof clearly adumbrates as to which are the representative suits. The suit is -not one of the.representative suits. Therefore, Order I Rule 10 does not apply. Accordingly, the Court below has committed manifest error of jurisdiction in impleading the first respondent as party third plaintiff to the suit. The question therefore is, whether the order is vitiated by any error of jurisdiction or material irregularity in the exercise of jurisdiction. Order I Rule 8 postulates that one person may sue or defend on behalf of all in the same interest. Where there are numerous persons having the same interest in one suit, - a) one or more of such persons may, with, the permission of the Court, sue or be sued or may defend such suit, on behalf of, or for the benefit of, all persons so interested : b) the Court may direct that one or more of such persons may sue or be sued, or may defend the suit, on behalf of, or for the benefit of, all persons so interested.