JAI NARAIN Vs. CHANDGI RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The history of the case, briefly stated is as under : That Chandgi Ram son of Ramji Lal, a resident of village Khandewala, Tehsil Gurgaon, filed a suit in the Court of Assistant Collector Ist Grade, Gurgaon, for a decree for declaration that he is an occupancy tenant of the suit land under Section 8 of the Punjab Tenancy Act 1887. In the suit Chandgi Ram son of Ramji Lal had impleaded Charna, Chandgi Ram son of Mukh Ram, Hardwari Lal and Meer Singh as defendants. Chandgi Ram son of Ramji Lal also submitted an application under Order 1, Rule 8 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (herienafter called the Code) for permission to sue the defendants on their own behalf and on behalf of other proprietors of the Shamlat Patti Teen of V. Khandewala. The Revenue Court did not pass any order on the said application authorising the defendants to contest the suit on behalf of all the Biswedars of the said Patti. Mehar Singh, Sher Singh and Mukhtiar Singh made an application in the Revenue Court alleging that the defendants were not their representatives and that they should be made a party to the suit. No order on that application was also passed by the Revenue Court. It was only ordered to be placed on the file. Sher Singh had, however, filed a written statement along with Charna, Shiv Narain and Jain Narain. Exhibit D. 3, is the copy of the order passed by the Revenue Court. From the perusal of Exhibit D.3, it appears that Mehar Singh, Sher Singh and Mukhtiar Singh were not shown as parties in the suit nor it is apparent they they were given any opportunity to produce any evidence in the case. The Assistant Collector Ist Grade, Gurgaon, declared Chandgi Ram son of Ramji Lal as an occupancy tenant under Section 8 of the Punjab Tenancy Act, 1887.

(2.) The main contention of the learned counsel for the plaintiff-appellants is that though Chandgi Ram son of Ramji Lal had filed an application under Order 1, Rule 8 of the Code, for suing the owners of the Patti through some of them in a representative capcity before the Assistant Collector Ist Grade, Gurgaon, yet no order was passed by the Court, granting permission to sue as such and, therefore, the present appellants had no opportunity to defend the said suit and the decree passed by the Revenue Court is not binding on the appellants and the other proprietors of the said Patti.

(3.) The scope of Order 1, Rule 8 of the Code is, that with the permission of the Court, a number of persons having same interest in the suit, can sue or be sued by one or more of them, on behalf of themselves. The conditions for the applicability of this rule are :