BALARAM PALAI Vs. COLLECTOR PURI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) When this revision came up for hearing before a learned single Judge, he desired for the reasons incorporated in his order dated 28-4-1993 that the point involved should be authoritatively settled by a larger Bench. It is because of this order that the matter has been placed before this Bench.

(2.) The point involved is whether, while dealing with an application falling within the purview of sub-rule (3) of R. 8 of O. 1 of the Civil P. C., 1908, the party concerned must satisfy the court before his prayer for impleading him as a party in the suit is allowed that the same is necessary because the person who has filed the representative suit would act prejudicially to his interest. This was the view taken earlier by a learned single Judge in Chantamani v. Kasinath, (1979) 47 Cut LT 365 (Orissa). The learned Judge before whom this revision came, however, thought differently because, according to him, that would be the relevant consideration when an application is made under sub-rule (5), and not sub-rule (3) for which the discretion conferred should be exercised in favour of the concerned person if his application is not mala fide and does not tend to abuse the process of law.

(3.) To answer the reference, let us note Rule 8 in its entirety :-