Madras High CourtMurugesan vs Ramdas on 29 July, 2021Equivalent citations: AIRONLINE 2021 MAD 1753Author:A.D.Jagadish ChandiraBench:A.D.Jagadish Chandira1\n\n                                    IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS\n\n                                                 DATE:    29.7.2021.\n\n                                                         CORAM\n\n                                   THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA\n\n                                             C.R.P. (PD) No.1393 of 2017\n                                                         and\n                                                C.M.P.No.6441 of 2017\n\n                     1.   Murugesan\n                     2.   Jeeva\n                     3.   Arunachalam\n                     4.   Chandra Mohan\n                     5.   Muthukumar                                       Petitioners\n\n                                     vs.\n\n                     1. Ramdas\n                     2. Samaya Sundaram\n                     3. Rajmohan\n\n                     4. Commissioner,\n                        Tiruvarur Municipality,\n                        Thiruvarur Demu,\n                        Illakka and Thiruvarur Town and Taluk,\n                        Tiruvarur District.\n\n                     5. Tahsildar,\n                        Tiruvarur, Thiruvarur Demu,\n                        Illakka and Thiruvarur Taluk and Town,\n                        Tiruvarur District.\n\n                     6. District Collector,\n                        Tiruvarur District,\n                        Thiruvarur Demu,\n                        Illakka and Thiruvarur Taluk,\n                        Vilamal Village.                                   Respondents\n\n\n\n\nhttps://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/\n                                                              2\n\n                            Civil Revision Petition filed underArticle 227of the Constitution\n                     of India against the Fair and Decreetal order dated 20.1.2017 passed\n                     in I.A.No.410 of 2013 in O.S.No.165 of 2013 on the file of the District\n                     Munsif, Tiruvarur.\n\n                               For Petitioner     : Mr.S.Sadasivan\n\n                               For R3             : Mr.N.Manokaran\n\n\n                                                           ORDERThe revision has been filed against the order and decree passed\n\n                     by the District Munsif, Tiruvarur         dated 20.1.2017 in I.A.No. 410 of\n\n                     2013 in O.S.No.165 of 2013 dismissing the petition filed underOrder I\n\n                     Rule 8 CPC.2. The petitioners are the plaintiffs in the suit.3. The plaintiffs had filed the suit on behalf of themselves and\n\n                     the Mirasudars and village representatives of Pullatheru Village.      The\n\n                     suit 'A' schedule properties in the Sundaravilagam revenue village are\n\n                     administered by the village Mirasudars and the villagers of Pullatheru\n\n                     Village for the expenses of the Arulmighu Pidari Mayiliamman temple.\n\n                     The suit 'B' schedule properties belong to the village community and\n\n                     'C' schedule properties are the water bodies in the village. The fishing\n\n                     rights of 'C' schedule properties have been with the villagers and the\n\n                     income derived therefrom was used for the public purposes and the\n\n\n\n\nhttps://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/3welfare of the village. Since the above properties were not properly\n\n                     maintained by the earlier Administrator Manicka Vanniar,                 the\n\n                     Mirasudars and villagers of Pullatheru village had earlier filed a suit in\n\n                     O.S.No.301 of       1975 for production of accounts and mesne profits.\n\n                     The said suit was decreed in favor of the Mirasudars and villagers on\n\n                     30.6.1977 and against that judgment decree, the said Manicka Vanniar\n\n                     filed first appeal in A.S.No.171 of 1977 which          was dismissed on\n\n                     3.3.1978. Against the dismissal of the first appeal, the said Manicka\n\n                     Vanniar filed second appeal in S.A.No.1742 of 1979 and the second\n\n                     appeal was also dismissed by this court on 26.10.1979. Thereafter,\n\n                     an Execution Petition was filed and the properties belonging to the\n\n                     villagers were recovered and handed over to the villagers.               'A'\n\n                     schedule      properties   were   administered   and   maintained   by   the\n\n                     Mirasudars and villagers by the elected Committees and the income\n\n                     derived from the properties were used for the expenses of the temple\n\n                     and the income derived from the 'B' schedule and 'C'                schedule\n\n                     properties were used for the public purposes of the village.4. Whileso, the defendants fraudulently sold the suit properties\n\n                     belonging to the village by registered documents dated 18.8.2004,\n\n                     2.2.2011 and 31.12.2008. Thereby, the plaintiffs having a community\n\n\n\n\nhttps://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/4interest, filed the suit in O.S.No. 165 of 2013 to declare the sale deeds\n\n                     as void.5. The    petitioners have also filed I.A.No.410 of 2013 in\n\n                     O.S.No.165 of 2013 underOrder I Rule 8 CPCseeking permission to\n\n                     sue on behalf of the villagers having similar interest.6. The Trial Court, by order dated 2.12.2013 allowed the petition\n\n                     and passed the following order:-"The petition is allowed in the interest of justice, however\n\n                               the petitioner is directed to give notice to the concerned\n\n                               persons under Order I Rule 8(2)CPC."7.   Subsequently,   on   13.12.2013,   the   court   directed   the\n\n                     petitioners to give notice to the persons, who are being represented by\n\n                     him in accordance with Order I Rule 8(2)CPCby 2.1.2014.        The\n\n                     petitioners, in due compliance of the order, effected public notice by\n\n                     paper publication. The petitioners, in order to prove that they have a\n\n                     community interest, had filed a copy of the judgment in O.S.No.301 of\n\n                     1975 dated 30.6.1977 and they also filed a copy of the suit register\n\n                     dated 6.11.2013 to prove that          earlier a petition had been filed in\n\n                     respect of the very same properties on behalf of Pullatheru Mirasudars.\n\n                     When the matter was listed on 2.1.2014, a vakalat was filed by a\n\n\n\n\nhttps://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/5counsel by name Mr.T.P.S.Manickam for objectors 1 to 60 and another\n\n                     vakalat was filed by another counsel for the objectors 61 to 91 and\n\n                     the matter was adjourned to 30.1.2014 for filing of objections and\n\n                     counters by the respondents, however, on 30.1.2014, at the request\n\n                     of the counsel for the respondents, the matter was again adjourned to\n\n                     28.2.2014 and again to 24.3.2014 and thereafter on 10.6.2014, the\n\n                     first respondent had filed a written statement and thereafter the\n\n                     matter was listed on several dates and the matter was posted for\n\n                     inquiry and finally on 20.1.2017, the Trial Judge had dismissed the\n\n                     petition filed underOrder I Rule 8 CPCagainst which the revision has\n\n                     been filed.8. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would\n\n                     submit that the Trial Court allowed the petition on 2.12.2013 and\n\n                     permitted the petitioners to take notice by way of paper publication.\n\n                     Pursuant to the same, the petitioners, in due compliance, have\n\n                     effected notice by paper publication.     Thereafter, counsels entered\n\n                     appearance on behalf of the Objectors.     After the respondents have\n\n                     appeared and putforth their objections with reference    to the claim of\n\n                     the petitioner to sue in the representative capacity, the court below, if\n\n                     the objectors are deemed to be necessary parties, ought to have\n\n\n\n\nhttps://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/6permitted them to be made as parties to the suit and allowed them to\n\n                     putforth their respective cases and on the basis of the pleas putforth\n\n                     by the parties concerned, should have framed necessary issues with\n\n                     reference to the said case on merits and one of the issues would also\n\n                     include the entitlement of the plaintiffs to sue against the defendants\n\n                     in representative capacity on behalf of the community and thereafter\n\n                     the Trial Court should have disposed the suit as per law. On the other\n\n                     hand, the court,   having earlier allowed the petition by order dated\n\n                     2.12.2013, without following the mandatory procedures contemplated\n\n                     underOrder I Rule 8 CPCand without understanding the scope and\n\n                     principles outlined underOrder I Rule 8 CPC, had strangely, by order\n\n                     dated 20.1.2017, dismissed the petition, which was earlier allowed on\n\n                     2.12.2013,    He further submitted that this Hon'ble court in the\n\n                     judgment in Sailappan v. Subramanian (2019-2-LW 885), by following\n\n                     an earlier Division Bench judgment of this court in Sankiah and others\n\n                     v. Vadakasi and others reported in 1980 TLNJ 86, had elaborately set\n\n                     out the scope and principles of law underOrder I Rule 8 CPC.         He\n\n                     would further submit that in this case, the petitioners, as stated above,\n\n                     have produced a copy of the judgment and decree in an earlier suit\n\n                     filed by the Mirasudars of the village in respect of the very same\n\n\n\n\nhttps://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/7property alongwith the plaint as document Nos.1 and 2 whereas the\n\n                     Trial Court, without proper application of mind and without following\n\n                     the procedures contemplated underOrder I Rule 8 CPC, wrongly\n\n                     observing that the petitioners had not filed any documents and not let\n\n                     in evidence to prove their community interest, had dismissed the\n\n                     petition.     He would further   submit that the suit schedule properties\n\n                     are the community properties belonging to the village and the plaintiffs\n\n                     as Mirasudars and       representatives of the village have got a right to\n\n                     protect the interest of the community. He would, therefore, pray that\n\n                     the civil revision petition may be allowed and the order passed by the\n\n                     Trial Court may be set aside.9. Per contra Mr.N.Manokaran, learned counsel appearing for the\n\n                     third respondent would submit that the respondents have filed a\n\n                     detailed written statement.        He would further submit that the\n\n                     Naattamais and Panchayatdars of the village,      who were administering\n\n                     the Arulmighu Pidari Mayiliamman temple, by Resolution dated\n\n                     29.12.2002, formed an Association and by that Resolution, handed\n\n                     over the administration of the village and the temple to the first\n\n                     defendant and a Resolution was also passed electing other office\n\n                     bearers and only on the       Resolution passed by the villagers, certain\n\n\n\n\nhttps://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/8deeds were done by the defendants for the welfare of the village and\n\n                     the temple whereas the revision petitioners/plaintiffs, who were\n\n                     antagonized, have filed the Application       to defeat the rights of the\n\n                     villagers.     He would further submit that no proper notice has been\n\n                     given by the plaintiffs and the notice does not disclose the nature of\n\n                     the suit and it also does not disclose the schedule of properties and\n\n                     the trial court rightly finding that the petitioners have not made out a\n\n                     case for permission underOrder I Rule 8 CPC, had rightly dismissed\n\n                     the same.10. In reply, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners\n\n                     would submit that the Trial Court, having earlier allowed the\n\n                     Application     and   granted   permission   to   effect   notice   by   paper\n\n                     publication, can only frame issues in respect of the plea of the\n\n                     plaintiffs underOrder I Rule 8 CPCand the issue can be determined in\n\n                     accordance with law taking into consideration the merits of the case at\n\n                     the time of trial and the permission, which was already granted cannot\n\n                     be set aside by a subsequent order.11. Heard the the learned counsel appearing for the parties and\n\n                     perused the materials available on record.12. A perusal of the records shows that the plaint has been filed\n\n\n\n\nhttps://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/9on 28.11.2013. Along with the plaintiff, petition in I.A.No. 410 of 2013\n\n                     had been filed by the revision petitioners/plaintiffs seeking permission\n\n                     to file the suit in a representative capacity underOrder I Rule 8 CPC.\n\n                     The Trial Court, by order dated 2.12.2013, had allowed the petition\n\n                     and directed the petitioners to take notice, based on which, paper\n\n                     publication has been affected and the objectors had also filed the\n\n                     objections.13. In a similar situation, relying upon the decision in Sankiah\n\n                     and others vs. Vadakasi and others (1980 TLNJ 86) wherein the\n\n                     principles of law have been outlined underOrder I Rule 8 CPCand\n\n                     various           other   decisions,   this   court   has   held   in   Sailappan   v.\n\n                     Subramanian (2019-2-LW 885) as under:-"      11. In this connection, for a better understanding\n\n                                   of the scope and the principles of law outlined underOrder I Rule 8 C.P.C., it is apt to refer the decision of\n\n                                   this Court in Sankiah and others vs. Vadakasi and\n\n                                   others, reported in 1980 TLNJ 86, wherein the Division\n\n                                   Bench had elaborately set out the scope and the\n\n                                   principles of law adumbrated underOrder I Rule 8\n\n                                   C.P.C., as follows:https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/10"Order 1 Rule 8 is an exception to the general\n\n                                   rule that all persons interested in a suit should\n\n                                   be joined as parties to it so that the matters\n\n                                   involved may be finally adjudicated upon and\n\n                                   multiplicity of litigation in respect of the same\n\n                                   matter may be avoided. The rule which is\n\n                                   based upon reason and good policy provides\n\n                                   where a number of persons have the same\n\n                                   interest in the subject matter or the suit, one\n\n                                   or more of them can, with the permission of\n\n                                   the Court, sue or be sued on behalf of\n\n                                   themselves and the others. The conditions that\n\n                                   are to be satisfied for applicability of the rules\n\n                                   are: (1) The parties must be numerous. But\n\n                                   the rule does not fix any limit to number. The\n\n                                   word numerous is not a term of art; nor is it\n\n                                   synonymous with the word numberless or\n\n                                   innumerable. It only means a group of persons\n\n                                   such as would make it inconvenient for the\n\n                                   plaintiffs to implead all of them either as\n\n\n\n\nhttps://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/11plaintiffs or defendants individually. (2) The\n\n                                   parties must have the same interest in the\n\n                                   suit. The interest must be common between\n\n                                   them all or           they must have        a common\n\n                                   grievance which they seek to redress. In other\n\n                                   words in a representative action it is essential\n\n                                   that the class of persons on behalf of whom or\n\n                                   against whom relief is sought should be clearly\n\n                                   defined. (3) The Court's permission under the\n\n                                   rule must be obtained. The Court should\n\n                                   exercise   its    judicial    discretion    in   granting\n\n                                   permission       to    a     person    to   sue     in   a\n\n                                   representative capacity under the rule. The\n\n                                   Court   should        be   satisfied   that      there   is\n\n                                   community of interest as between the plaintiffs\n\n                                   or the defendants, as the case may be, to\n\n                                   justify the adoption of the procedure provided\n\n                                   under the rule. However, it is not necessary\n\n                                   that a formal order should be passed by the\n\n                                   Court. From the circumstances of the case and\n\n\n\n\nhttps://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/12from the fact that the Court had ordered\n\n                                   publication of the notice it can be presumed\n\n                                   that the Court had granted the necessary\n\n                                   permission under Order 1 Rule 8. (4) Notice\n\n                                   must be given to the parties to whom it is\n\n                                   proposed to represent in the suit. Issue of a\n\n                                   notice either privately or by publication on the\n\n                                   persons     concerned     is   an        indispensable\n\n                                   preliminary to the trial of the suit under Order\n\n                                   1 Rule 8. It is necessary that the plaintiff\n\n                                   should give the names of persons whose\n\n                                   addresses      are   ascertainable.      If   personal\n\n                                   service   is   not   practicable    in    respect   of\n\n                                   ascertained persons or if the persons are\n\n                                   unascertainable then resort should be had to\n\n                                   service of notice by publication. In such a\n\n                                   case, the Court should see that they are\n\n                                   published in such dailies that the persons\n\n                                   interested are likely to read it, This is because\n\n                                   any decision rendered in a suit filed with\n\n\n\n\nhttps://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/13permission of the Court under Order 1 Rule 8\n\n                                   will be binding on persons who are not parties\n\n                                   to the suit and they will not be in a position to\n\n                                   contest the suit on a subsequent occasion as\n\n                                   the earlier decision would operates as res\n\n                                   judicate by virtue of Explanation 6 tosection\n\n                                   11of the Civil Procedure Code which provides\n\n                                   that where persons litigate bonafide in respect\n\n                                   of a public right or of a private right claimed in\n\n                                   common      for   themselves     and       others,    all\n\n                                   persons interested in such right shall, for the\n\n                                   purposes of this section, be deemed to claim\n\n                                   under the persons so litigating'. Hence a heavy\n\n                                   duty is cast on the Court to meticulously follow\n\n                                   the procedure prescribed byOrder 1 Rule 8\n\n                                   C.P.C. Even though a defendant against whom\n\n                                   a decree is sought may not raise any such\n\n                                   objection    against   the     plaintiff     (5)     The\n\n                                   provisions of Order 1 Rule 8 do not enjoin that\n\n                                   the plaintiffs should obtain before hand the\n\n\n\n\nhttps://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/14authority    of   those   whom   they   seek   to\n\n                                   represent, the reason being that it will be open\n\n                                   to all person having the same interest to get\n\n                                   themselves impleaded and either support the\n\n                                   plaintiff or oppose him in the suit. Similarly, it\n\n                                   will not be open to the defendants to state that\n\n                                   they do not seek to represent the class of\n\n                                   persons against whom the suit is sought to be\n\n                                   filed in a representative capacity. The above\n\n                                   principles can be deduced from the following\n\n                                   decisions.A.I.R. 1933 Privy Council 183; A.I.R. 1972 Ker\n\n                                   269; A.I.R. 1943 Mad 161; A.I.R. 1933 Lah\n\n                                   749; A.I.R. 1959 Bom 491; A.I.R. 1965 Ker\n\n                                   200; A.I.R. 1977 All 421.......There may be some inter se dispute between\n\n                                   the plaintiffs and their followers on the one\n\n                                   side and certain group of residents of Chellam\n\n\n\n\nhttps://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/15North and South Streets on the other. But that\n\n                                   cannot in any way debar the plaintiffs from\n\n                                   filing the suit with the leave of the Court under\n\n                                   Order 1 Rule 8. What is necessary is that the\n\n                                   plaintiffs should obtain the permission of the\n\n                                   Court to institute the suit in a representative\n\n                                   capacity under Order 1 Rule 8. The rules does\n\n                                   not enjoin that the plaintiffs should obtain\n\n                                   before hand the authority of those on whose\n\n                                   behalf they seek to institute the suit with the\n\n                                   leave of the Court under Order1 Rule 8. It is\n\n                                   not the concern of the defendants whether the\n\n                                   persons whom the plaintiffs seek to represent\n\n                                   see eye to eye with the plaintiffs in the matter\n\n                                   of the conduct of the suit. It will be open to\n\n                                   any of the persons whom the plaintiffs seek to\n\n                                   represent to get himself impleaded in the suit\n\n                                   and get the suit decreed differently or even\n\n                                   dismissed if, according to him, no relief as\n\n                                   prayed for by the plaintiffs, should be granted\n\n\n\n\nhttps://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/16by the Court. Therefore, apart from the fact\n\n                                   that the plaintiffs need not be supported by\n\n                                   the previous consent of all those persons\n\n                                   whom they seek to represent as plaintiffs in\n\n                                   the suit, the defendants have no locus standi\n\n                                   to say that the plaintiffs are not competent to\n\n                                   represent    the   others      whom   the   seek   to\n\n                                   represent.A.I.R. 1921 Mad. 682; A.I.R. 1929 Mad. 44;\n\n                                   ref.In A.I.R 1932 Bombay 65 it has been held that\n\n                                   it is not permissible for a Court to dismiss a\n\n                                   suit under Order 1 Rule 8 simply on the\n\n                                   ground that some persons object to the\n\n                                   plaintiffs carrying on the suit.......Further, it is not for the defendants to object\n\n                                   to the leave being granted to the plaintiffs to\n\n                                   sue    the   defendants     in   a    representative\n\n\n\n\nhttps://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/17capacity. It has been held in 1913 I.L.R. 36\n\n                                   Madras. 418 thus: 'A plaintiff may be allowed\n\n                                   to sue certain defendants undersection 30C.P.C. Of 1882, as representing certain others\n\n                                   in spite of the objection or refusal of the\n\n                                   defendants on record to represent the others\n\n                                   the consent of the defendants on record not\n\n                                   being necessary'.......In this context, it is necessary to state that in\n\n                                   a suit which is filed with the permission of\n\n                                   Court under Order 1 Rule 8 no question of\n\n                                   misjoinder or non-joinder of parties would\n\n                                   arise. The very purpose of filing a suit underOrder 1 Rule 8 C.P.C. is because it will be\n\n                                   inconvenient to implead all the necessary\n\n                                   parties to the suit. Once the necessary notice\n\n                                   under Order 1 Rule 8 is published it will be\n\n                                   open to the other parties to get themselves\n\n\n\n\nhttps://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/18impleaded and either support the plaintiffs or\n\n                                       oppose the relief claimed by the plaintiffs.\n\n                                       Therefore, the finding of the trial Court on\n\n                                       issue No.4 viz., that the suit is bad for non-\n\n                                       joinder and misjoinder is equally erroneous\n\n                                       and is therefore set aside.'12. Considering the position of law as regards\n\n                                   theOrder I Rule 8 C.P.C., as amply brought out by the\n\n                                   Division Bench in the abovecited decision, it is seen\n\n                                   that once the Court had deemed it fit to take the\n\n                                   application on file and issue notice to the defendants\n\n                                   concerned as well as the objectors and the plaintiff also\n\n                                   having effected notice, in respect of the same, by way\n\n                                   of the paper publication, as provided under the law, it\n\n                                   is found that the same itself would amount to presume\n\n                                   that the Court had granted necessary permission underOrder I Rule 8 C.P.C. If at all the objectors, to whom\n\n                                   the notice had been sent, have any resistance to the\n\n                                   abovesaid application preferred by the plaintiff, at the\n\n                                   most, they are entitled only to putforth their objections\n\n\n\n\nhttps://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/19with reference to the same and if they deemed it fit, as\n\n                                   provided underOrder I Rule 8 C.P.C., they can always\n\n                                   apply to the Court concerned to be made as parties to\n\n                                   the suit of the plaint and accordingly, get themselves\n\n                                   impleaded   and   thereby,    thereafter   putforth   their\n\n                                   respective cases in the suit and accordingly, it is found\n\n                                   that thereafter, the Court below, after considering the\n\n                                   rival contentions of the parties in respect of the\n\n                                   abovesaid issue, after framing necessary issues in the\n\n                                   suit, should proceed to determine the same as well as\n\n                                   the other issues and thereby, dispose of the suit.\n\n                                   However, insofar as this case is concerned, the\n\n                                   abovesaid procedure contemplated in the law as well\n\n                                   as outlined in the abovecited decision, having not been\n\n                                   followed, on the abovesaid ground alone, it is seen that\n\n                                   the impugned order is liable to be dismissed.13.In the decision inRoyal Villa Residents'\n\n                                   Association vs. The Project Management Committee,\n\n                                   reported in 2013 (4) CTC 205, it has been held that\n\n                                   even if the suit had been filed without complying with\n\n\n\n\nhttps://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/20the provisions ofOrder I Rule 8 C.P.C., the only course\n\n                                   available to the Court concerned is to frame necessary\n\n                                   issues with reference to the same during the course of\n\n                                   trial and determine the issue either way and on that\n\n                                   ground, the Court would not be entitled to strike off\n\n                                   the suit for non-compliance of the provision and this\n\n                                   position of law has been outlined in the abovecited\n\n                                   decision in the following manner:'Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908),\n\n                                      Order 1, Rule 8 – Non compliance of provision\n\n                                      – Striking out of Plaint – Whether there has\n\n                                      been compliance of Order 1, Rule 8, to be\n\n                                      decided by framing issues during trial – Plaint\n\n                                      cannot    be   struck   off   in   Revision    for\n\n                                      noncompliance of provision – Civil Revision\n\n                                      Petition dismissed.Facts : Respondents herein filed Suit for\n\n                                      injunction. Instant Revision has been preferred\n\n                                      by Defendant in Suit for striking out of Plaint in\n\n                                      Suit on account of non-compliance of Order 1,\n\n\n\n\nhttps://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/21Rule 8 of CPC.Held : According to me, without going into the\n\n                                   merits of the contentions raised by both the\n\n                                   parties, at this stage, the suit cannot be struck\n\n                                   down on the ground of non-compliance of\n\n                                   Order 1 Rule 8 of Civil Procedure Code. To\n\n                                   attract the provisions of Order 1 Rule 8 of Civil\n\n                                   Procedure Code, the suit must have been filed\n\n                                   in the representative capacity and admittedly,\n\n                                   the   suit   was    filed    by   the   respondents\n\n                                   representing       the      Project     Management\n\n                                   Committee, Kotturpruam Officers Cooperative\n\n                                   Housing Society which is a registered body\n\n                                   under theSocieties Registration Actand where\n\n                                   the Project Management Committee which is a\n\n                                   part of the Officers Co-operative Housing\n\n                                   Society can file a suit without complying with\n\n                                   the provisions of order 1 Rule 8 of Civil\n\n                                   Procedure Code can be decided only during\n\n                                   trial by framing necessary issues to that effect.\n\n\n\n\nhttps://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/22Therefore, at this stage, it cannot be stated\n\n                                   that the suit filed by the respondents is not\n\n                                   maintainable for non-compliance of Order 1\n\n                                   Rule 8 of Civil Procedure Code. Further, the\n\n                                   Honourable Judge Mr.Justice P.Sadasivam, as\n\n                                   he then was held in Kamaraj Bhavan, Lower\n\n                                   Bazaar Road, uthagamandalam v. A.Rahim and\n\n                                   3 others, 1996-2-L.W 456(cited supra) held\n\n                                   that the failure of the plaintiffs to obtain\n\n                                   permission under Order 1 Rule 8 of Civil\n\n                                   Procedure   Code    is    only   a   procedural\n\n                                   irregularity and the permission can be obtained\n\n                                   even during the pendency of the appeal and in\n\n                                   that reported case, permission was granted in\n\n                                   the Second Appeal stage. Therefore, in my\n\n                                   opinion, plaint cannot be struck off on the\n\n                                   ground that the suit was not filed by complying\n\n                                   with the provisions of Order 1 Rule 8 of Civil\n\n                                   Procedure Code and in my opinion, the same\n\n                                   has to be decided during trial by framing\n\n\n\n\nhttps://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/23necessary issues. Hence, I do not find any\n\n                                       merit in the revision Petition and the same is\n\n                                       accordingly       dismissed.      Consequently,\n\n                                       connected Miscellaneous Petition is dismissed.No costs.14. Similar is the view expressed by this Court in\n\n                                   the decision inChennimalai Yarns Pvt., Limited vs.\n\n                                   S.Chandrasekar, reported in 2005 (5) CTC 411 and the\n\n                                   abovesaid position of law is outlined as follows:'21. Order 1, Rule 8,C.P.C. is the enabling\n\n                                       Rule, prescribing the condition to file the suit\n\n                                       or to be sued in the Representative Capacity.\n\n                                       When the permission has been granted, it\n\n                                       becomes the duty of the Court to direct notice\n\n                                       to be given to the opposite parties. It is\n\n                                       contended that the requirements of Order 1,\n\n                                       Rule 8,C.P.C. has not been complied with and\n\n                                       that notice to other shareholders has not been\n\n                                       issued. In support of this contention that no\n\n                                       public   notice   was   issued   to   the   other\n\n\n\n\nhttps://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/24shareholders, no material had been produced.\n\n                                       In the absence of any material, it is not\n\n                                       possible    to   accept    the    contention       that\n\n                                       necessary conditions of Order 1, Rule 8,C.P.C.\n\n                                       was not complied with. The contention of the\n\n                                       Revision Petitioners raising objection regarding\n\n                                       the Representative Capacity of D-6 cannot be\n\n                                       accepted. However, it is open to the parties to\n\n                                       put-forth   their   objection    at   the   time     of\n\n                                       adducing evidence.'15. Therefore, it could be gathered from the\n\n                                   abovecited decisions, if at all either the defendants or\n\n                                   the objectors have any resistance or objection to the\n\n                                   entitlement of the plaintiff to file the suit in the\n\n                                   representative capacity, the defendants should putforth\n\n                                   their pleas in the written statement or in the counter\n\n                                   and the objectors, after putting forth their objections,\n\n                                   should apply to the Court to get themselves impleaded\n\n                                   in the lis and also reiterating their objections with\n\n                                   reference to the entitlement of the plaintiff to sue in\n\n\n\n\nhttps://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/25the representative capacity and thereafter, the course\n\n                                   open to the Court is to frame issues on that point and\n\n                                   determine the same in accordance with law."14. In the case on hand, having already allowed the petition by\n\n                     order dated 2.12.2013, the option available to the Trial Court could\n\n                     only be to          frame issues on that aspect and should have passed in\n\n                     order         in   accordance   with   law    whereas   the   Trial   Court   had\n\n                     subsequently, by order dated 20.1.2017, had dismissed the Application\n\n                     underOrder I Rule 8 CPC. Further, it is seen that the petitioners have\n\n                     filed the documents relating to the earlier suit in respect of the very\n\n                     same properties filed in the representative capacity, however, the Trial\n\n                     Court had ignored the documents and rendered a wrong finding that\n\n                     the petitioners have not filed any document. Therefore, this court is of\n\n                     the opinion that the order passed by the Trial Court is erroneous and\n\n                     suffers from infirmity.         Further, it has been submitted by the learned\n\n                     counsel for the respondents that notice is not properly served underOrder I Rule 8 CPC.15. Accordingly, the civil revision petition is allowed and the\n\n                     matter is remitted back to the Trial Court. The petitioners are directed\n\n                     to issue proper notice in accordance with law and thereafter the court,\n\n\n\n\nhttps://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/26apart from framing other necessary issues, shall frame the issue on\n\n                     the aspect of right of the plaintiffs to file the suit in their representative\n\n                     capacity and dispose of the suit in accordance with law. No costs. The\n\n                     connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.29.7.2021.Index: Yes/No.\n                     Internet: Yes/No.\n                     ssk.To1. District Munsif,\n                        Tiruvarur.2. Commissioner,\n                        Tiruvarur Municipality,\n                        Thiruvarur Demu,\n                        Illakka and Thiruvarur Town and Taluk,\n                        Tiruvarur District.3. Tahsildar,\n                        Tiruvarur, Thiruvarur Demu,\n                        Illakka and Thiruvarur Taluk and Town,\n                        Tiruvarur District.4. District Collector,\n                        Tiruvarur District,\n                        Thiruvarur Demu,\n                        Illakka and Thiruvarur Taluk,\n                        Vilamal Village.https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/27A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA, J.Ssk.C.R.P. (PD) No.1393 of 2017andC.M.P.No.6441 of 201729.7.2021.https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/