The main legal point established is that an order rejecting an application for permission to sue in a representative capacity is amenable to a revision petition under Section 115 of the Code, and the enabling provision of Order 1, Rule 8 entitles one party to represent many who have a common cause of action.

T. Vaiphei, J.

1. This civil revision under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure is directed against the order dated 10.12.2003 passed by the Ld. Civil Judge, Junior Division, Court No. 1, Agartala in T.S. No. 93 of 2003. By the impugned order, the application filed by the plaintiff-petitioner for permission to file the suit in a representative capacity under Order 1, Rule 8 of the Code was rejected.

2. It is the case of the petitioner that Title Suit No. 93 of 2003 was filed by him challenging the placement of the officers in the grade of Senior Forest Rangers. He also filed a separate application under Order 1, Rule 8 of the Code for permission to sue in a representative capacity for and on behalf of others who have the same interest in the suit. By the impugned order, the Ld. Civil Judge rejected the application on the following grounds : -

(1) no separate application was filed by the petitioner;

(2) the officials who were sought to be represented by the petitioner did not have the same interest of the petitioner in the suit;

(3) the body of persons sought to be represented is not sufficiently definite to be recognised as participants in the suit;

(4) the number of officers are also not specified in the plaint.

3. Aggrieved by the impugned order, the petitioner is approaching this Court by way of a civil revision. At the outset, Mr. N. Majumder, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents has raised a preliminary objection contending that a civil revision does not lie against the impugned order. Following this objection the first point for determination in this petition is whether the order rejecting an application under Order 1, Rule 8 of the Code is a "case which has been decided" within the meaning of Section 115 of the Code. Since the point raised in this petition involves an important question of law, this Court requested Mr. A.K. Bhowmik, the learned senior counsel and Mr. S. Deb, the learned senior counsel to address the Court on this point.

4. In order to appreciate the rival contentions of the parties, we may first take note of the provisions of Section 115 of the Code, which are reproduced thus :

"115. Revision - (1) The High Court may call for the record of any case which has been decided by any court subordinate to such High Court and in which no appeal lies thereto, and if such subordinate court appears -

(a) to have exercised a jurisdiction not vested in it by law, or

(b) to have failed to exercise a jurisdiction so vested, or

(c) to have acted in the exercise of its jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity, the High Court may make such order in the case as it thinks fit :

Provided that the High Court shall not, under this section, vary or reverse any order made, or Any order deciding an issue, in the course of a suit Or other proceeding, except where the order, if it had been made in favour of the party applying for revision, would have finally disposed of the suit or other proceedings.

(2) The High Court shall not, under this section vary or reverse any decree or order against which an appeal lies either to the High Court or to any court subordinate thereto.

(3) A revision shall not operate as a stay of suit or other proceeding before the court except where such suit or other proceeding is stayed by the High Court."

5. The provisions extracted above plainly show that the first condition precedent for exercising the power of the High Court to call for the record is that a case should have been decided by any court subordinate to it. If no case is decided by a subordinate court, the High Court is denuded of the power to call for the record of the subordinate court. The proviso to Section 115(1) makes it clear that the High Court shall not vary or reverse any order made or any order deciding an issue in the course of a suit or a proceeding except where the order, if it had been made in favour of the party applying for revision would have finally disposed of the suit or other proceeding. From this,