JUDGMENT

Indermeet Kaur, J.

1. Two orders have been impugned order before this Court. The first order is dated 21.8.2010 and the second is the order dated 16.8.2011. Vide order dated 21.8.2010 the first appellate court had dismissed the appeal against the order dated 24.5.2010 vide which the application filed by the plaintiff seeking relief under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the Code) had been declined. The impugned order had noted that this petition is primarily a petition under Section 92 of the Code and necessary permission not having been obtained the present suit in these circumstances is not maintainable. Impugned order had accordingly declined the relief sought for by the plaintiff under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 of the Code. Second order dated 16.8.2011 had rejected the prayer made by the defendant under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code whereby the defendant had prayed that since this suit is a representative suit and the mandatory provisions of Section 92 of the Code not having been complied with, the plaint is liable to be rejected, had been declined.

2. Record shows that the present suit has been filed by the sole plaintiff name