The court must consider relevant facts to determine the plaintiff's interest in the suit and locus standi to sue the defendants, not solely relying on the averments in the plaint.

ORDER :- The plaintiff-applicant filed a suit against the respondents-defendants. The suit was registered. Thereafter the plaintiff made an application seeking permission of the Court to sue some other persons under Order 1, Rule 8, C.P.C. in representative capacity. The application was dismissed by the trial court. The order of dismissal is challenged in this revision application.

2. The suit was filed by the plaintiff on the ground that he was a Mehazan of the Mallikarjuna Temple and that the bye-laws of the Mazanias of the Mallilkarjuna were not drafted and approved and the temple was managed by ail the Mahazans.

3. The application was resisted on the ground that the plaintiff was not a Mahazan of the Mallikarjuna Temple because ho belonged to the "Gaude Bhamaikars" community end that the plaintiff is a Gawdo Bhaimaikar and was only a servant of the temple. It was further contended by the defendants that the members of the Mallikarjuna temple were constituted in a Mazania affiliated to the Nava Durga Temple and that therefore a suit could be filed only by the "Procurador" of the Nava Durga Mazania with the previous permission of the Administrative Tribunal. The defendants therefore contend that as the plaintiff has no locus standi no permission can be given to him to sue in representative capacity.

4. It is contended by Dr. Lobo that the lower Court had no jurisdiction to go into the facts alleged by the defendants in reply to his application for suing in representative capacity and that all that the court should consider was the statements made by him in the plaint.

5. Order 1, Rule 8 enables a person to sue in representative capacity if that person has an interest in the suit. The court therefore cannot ipso tacto grant permission to the plaintiff to sue in a representative capacity merely based on the averments of his plaint. The court is bound to find out whether the plaintiff has interest in the suit if it is denied. Whilst doing so, in the present case, the lower court had to consider the fact whether the plaintiff was a Mahazan and also the fact whether the Mallikarjuna was constituted into a Mazania affiliated to the Nava Durga Temple. I am

supported by the decision in 'Gafuralli Sayad Anwar v. Mohiddin Shamsuddin' AIR 1932 Bom 65.

6. Whilst ascertaining the fact whether the plaintiff had interest in the suit and whether the plaintiff had a locus standi to sue the defendants, the trial court appears to have also considered the fact that Gono Gaunso who filed an affidavit for the plaintiff, admitted that there are bye-laws framed wherein it is stated that the Mallikarjuna Temple is affiliated to the Nava Durga Mazania. I am not concerned with the material on which the trial court relied but merely with the fact that the trial court had jurisdiction to go into all the relevant facts to find out whether the plaintiff had interest in the suit.

7. The trial court has rightly considered the points involved and whilst doing so had not exceeded its jurisdiction.

8. The revision application is dismissed.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document