( 1 ) THIS appeal is directed against the judgment and order passed by the learned Additional District Judge on September 16, 2004 passed in Suit No. 1236/2000 dismissing the suit filed by the appellants as plaintiffs with costs.

( 2 ) THE suit was instituted by the appellants as plaintiffs seeking for a decree -of declaration that the plaintiffs and particularly its members are owners by adverse possession in respect of all the area abutting the Central Park, and also for a decree of permanent injunction and also mandatory injunction restraining the defendants, their agents, servants and employees from in any manner ejecting the plaintiff-association and its members and their families from the suit property as also restraining further demolition and to prove temporary structures at the suit site, and also to pass a decree for damages.

( 3 ) THE aforesaid suit was instituted in the name of Subhash Market association. In the cause title of the suit the appellant-plaintiff described itself as follows: "subhash Market Association Subhash Market JJ Camp, Nanakpura, Moti Bagh I, New Delhi-110021. " however, along with the aforesaid plaint a memo of parties was annexed wherein name of Shri Mukesh Kumar Gupta son of Shri D. C. Gupta was shown as plaintiff No. 2. It was also shown that Subhash Market Association had filed the said suit through its President Shri Pran Nath Soni. The plaint was signed and verified by Sh. Prem Nath Soni alone. No right of the plaintiff No. 2 was disclosed in the plaint.

( 4 ) IN the plaint it was not stated that the plaintiff is a registered society. It only stated that the suit is filed in a representative capacity and, therefore, a separate application under Order I, Rule 8 of the Code of Civil Procedure was filed and it was stated that the plaint was being instituted, filed, signed and verified by Shri Pran Nath Soni, the Pressident of the plaintiff-association for and on behalf of its members whose number is approximately 75 to 80. The cause of action for filing the suit is stated in paragraph 19 of the plaint.

( 5 ) THE respondents herein were arrayed as defendants in the plaint. The suit was contested by the respondents who filed their written statement. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties issues were framed on 6. 7. 2004 and Issues Nos. 1 and 2 were directed to be treated as preliminary issues. Issue Nos. 5 and 6 relating to maintainability of the suit were also treated as preliminary issues and an opportunity was granted to the parties to argue on the same, as noticed in the impugned order. These issues read as under:

1. Whether the plaintiff is an association and legally entitled to file the present suit under Order I Rule 8 CPC? OPP. 2. Whether the suit has been filed by a duly authorised person? OPP. XX XX XX 3. Whether the suit is not maintainable in view of the preliminary objection taken by the defendant No. 1 in its written statement? OPD1. 4. Whether the suit is not maintainable in view of Section 14 (l) (e) of Specific Relief Fund Act, 1963?.

( 6 ) THE learned Additional District Judge took up the aforesaid four issues as preliminary issues and by his judgment and order dated September 16,2004 dismissed the suit after recording his findings in the aforesaid issues, namely, Issue Nos. 1, 2, 5 and 6.

( 7 ) AS against Issue Nos. 1 and 2 it was held that the aforesaid suit which was filed by the appellant as plaintiff cannot be treated as a representative suit as the requirement of issuing a notice as contemplated under Order I Rule 8 of the Code of Civil Procedure for which a direction was given by the High Court vide order dated June 19, 2000 was not complied with. It was also held that the suit was not instituted and the plaint was not filed, signed and verified by a duly authorised person. Accordingly, the aforesaid two issues framed as Issue Nos. 1 and 2 were decided against the appellant-plaintiff and in favour of the defendants-respondents.

( 8 ) SO far a