RAM KUMAR DANI AGARWAL Vs. JEEVANLAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision is directed against an order, rejecting the application of the plaintiff under Order 1, Rule 8 of the Code of Civil Procedure for permission to sue the defendants for the benefit of all persons who may be interested in the suit.

(2.) The plaintiff nominated Jcevanlal, Jhadu and Krishna to represent the numerous persons residing in the vicinity of his tank known as "Naya-talao" and its embankments, situate at Raipur, bearing Khasra Nos. 400 and 401 respectively. The allegations in the plaint arc that in or about the month of October 1955, the above-named three defendants wrongfully planted certain trees on the plaintiff's land without any right and without his knowledge or consent. When the plaintiff came to know of this on or about October 5, 1955, he tried to remove them whereupon the defendants came to the spot and asserted that the trees had been planted by them and they would not allow him to remove them at any cost and further they also asserted that they had planted the trees and were preventing him from removing them in the interests of and tor the benefit of the public residing in the vicinity. The plaintiff prayed in the suit for a permanent injunction to restrain the defendants from planting trees on his land and from obstructing him from removing them.

(3.) The plaintiff made an application under Order 1. Rule 8 of the Code of Civil Procedure seeking leave of the Court that the three defendants may represent all the inhabitants of the locality. The learned trial Judge dismissed this application without giving any reasons. His order reads thus: "I have gone through the application of the plaintiff dated 4-10-1958 under Order 1, Rule 8, C. P.C. The application has no force and the same is rejected". In my opinion to say the least, this is not a judicial order. It is the right of every litigant to know the grounds on which a prayer made by him is allowed or rejected.