RAMJANAM SINGH Vs. RAMBARAN SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application in revision against an order of the Munsif of Sasaram refusing the petitioners leave to prosecute a suit in a representative capacity on behalf of the public. The suit was originally instituted by three persons for a declaration that khasra plot No. 2107 of Mouza Derhgaon was from time immemorial used as a village path both by the plaintiffs and by the other inhabitants of the village and that the plaintiffs and other inhabitants had got a right of easement to pass over this plot of land and it was necessary to pass over it in order to come to a place of worship.

(2.) They allege that the defendants had encroached upon this plot of land and the plaintiffs and the other villagers were put to very great inconvenience. They therefore instituted the suit and asked for permission to proceed in a representative capacity as representing the public of that village. The learned Munsif refused permission under Order 1, Rule 8, Civil P.C., and the only reason given by him in his order of 25 August 1931, was that only three persons had joined as plaintiffs in the suit and that there was nothing to show that the suit had really been brought on behalf of the public or that the said three persons were representatives of the public. Thereafter five more persons filed an application to be made plaintiffs and asked that they along with the three original plaintiffs may be allowed to prosecute the suit in a representative capacity on behalf of the public under Order 1, Rule 8, of the Code.

(3.) The learned Munsif rejected this application also by his order of 17th September 1931, but gave no reason whatever for the refusal. Therefore the only reason which appears to have been given in the first order mentioned above was that only three persons had joined as plaintiffs and that there was nothing to show that they were acting as representing the public. Order 1, Rule 8, provides that: where there are numerous persons having the same interest in one suit, one or more of such persons may, with the permission of the Court sue or be sued, or may defend, in such suit, on behalf of or for the benefit of all persons so interested. There was a clear allegation in the plaint as well as in the two petitions filed, one on behalf of the original three plaintiffs and the other on behalf of the five additional plaintiffs, stating that they wanted to prosecute the suit as representing the public. There was nothing on the record to show that this statement was incorrect. Under Order 1, Rule 8 the Court was bound to give notice at the plaintiffs expense of the institution of the suit to all such persons whom the plaintiffs purported to represent either by personal service or by public advertisement as the Court in each case may direct.