SUHLAR Vs. RAM SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiffs filed the suit for permanent injunction along with an application under Order 1 Rule 8 Civil Procedure Code. Admittedly, no orders were passed by the trial Court on the application under Order 1 Rule 8 C.P.C. granting permission to sue the plaintiffs on behalf of the proprietors of the village. Even the plaintiffs did not file any list of the proprietors on whom the notice under Order 1 Rule 8 C.P.C. could be issued. Even the trial Court observed in its judgment that in this case the plaintiffs are proved co-proprietors of the suit land. Even in their individual capacity, they can file the present suit. Ultimately, the trial Court dismissed the plaintiff's suit vide its judgment dated 14th August, 1985. In appeal, the learned Additional District Judge, during arguments found out that the present suit had been filed in representative capacity under Order 1 Rule 8 C.P.C. But since the trial Court did not send any notice of the application in the village nor any Munadi was got effected, he set aside the judgment and the decree of the trial Court on that ground alone and remanded the case back for following the procedure prescribed under Order 1 Rule 8 C.P.C. and thereafter to decide the suit in accordance with law. Dissatisfied with the same, the defendants have filed this appeal in this Court.

(2.) At the time of motion hearing, it was submitted that no such objection under Order 1 Rule 8 C.P.C. was taken by the plaintiffs and the Court itself has taken this plea and that at the most the suit could be treated as filed by the plaintiffs.

(3.) Learned counsel for the defendants submitted that in case no permission was granted under Order 1 Rule 8 C.P.C. then in that situation, the suit be treated as filed by the plaintiffs alone and obviously, the other proprietors being not party to the suit, any judgment and decree passed therein will not be binding on them.