V. BHASKARA RAO, J.

( 1 ) THIS is a revision petition filed by defendants 2 to 5 assailing the order of the Court below granting permission to sue the defendants in representative capacity.

( 2 ) THE facts of the case are that the plaintiffs filed a suit for declaration, declaring that the C. T. S. No. 3477 of Hubli is part of street or lane and also for permanent injunction against the defendants 2 to 5 not to proceed with the construction over C. T. S. Nos. 2616-B and 3477 as per building Plan No. HDC/bb II/28/arb/2b/pwd, dated 24-8-1995 and also for such other reliefs. Learned Counsel assailing the order of the court below permitting the plaintiffs to sue the defendants in representative capacity has filed this revision.

( 3 ) LEARNED Counsel for the petitioners contended that as per Order I, rule 8 read with Order 7, Rule 4, Civil Procedure Code of Karnataka amendment, the Court before granting permission ought to have issued a notice to the defendants 2 to 5. It is secondly contended that who are the parties, who are affected is not specifically stated and their number is also not mentioned. Therefore, on that count itself, the permission granted is liable to be set aside.

( 4 ) TO appreciate the above contentions, it is relevant to refer to some of the facts. The respondents-plaintiffs alleged in the plaint that the defendant 1 is a statutory authority as the same is Hubli-Dharwad municipal Corporation, Hubli. Its powers and functions are circumscribed by the provisions of the Karnataka Municipal Corporation Act and the Rules framed thereunder. Defendant 1 framed Zoning regulations governing the use of land and the construction of buildings. Defendants 2 to 5 are the owners of the property comprised in C. T. S. Ward no. III, C. T. S. No. 2616-B of Hubli. Towards the southern side of this property, there is street or lane. This street or lane belongs to defendant 1. Southern part of this street or lane is now numbered as C. T. S. No. 3477, C. T. S. No. 2616-B and C. T. S. No. 3477 are the subject matter of this suit. So they are collectively called as property in suit. Defendant 1 is the owner of all the streets and lanes in the town. Defendants 2 to 5 got approved a plan and trying to construct on the street or lane occupying the street or lane. If the construction is carried on it will cause great hardship to the general public to pass through the street or lane including the plaintiffs. Further, there is also a proposal to widen the said street or lane.

( 5 ) THE facts stated in the plaint clearly show that the public at large are affected by the proposed construction. Further, if the construction is carried on the street or the lane by defendants 2 to 5, it will affect the public at large, is a question of fact to be decided by the Trial Court. When there are prima facie allegations alleging that defendants 2 to 5 are occupying the street or lane and making construction work on the street or lane, which belonged to the Municipal Corporation, that is to the public, it cannot be said that there is no allegation at all.

( 6 ) THEREFORE, the question that arises for my consideration in this petition is. "whether prior notice to defendants is required before granting permission to sue in representative capacity under Order 1, Rule 8, Civil Procedure Code when the subject matter of the suit involves rights of the public at large?"

( 7 ) ORDER I, Rule 8 envisages that one person may sue or defend on behalf of all in the same interest and one or more of such persons may, with the permission of the Court, sue or be sued or may defend such suit on behalf of all and in every case where permission is granted under sub-rule (1), at the expense of the plaintiff, give notice of the suit to all persons so interested. Under sub-rule (1) any person on whose behalf or for whose benefit a suit is instituted, may apply to the Court to be made a party to such suit. Sub-rule (3) of Rule 1 of Order 23 stipulates that no agreement, compromise o

Click Here to Read the rest of this document