1. This civil revision arises from the order of 2nd Addl. District Judge, Jammu, dated 19-11-2004, in suit titled Purani Mandi Businessmen Association v. Om Parkash Shukla and ors. Rejecting the petitioners applications for intervention.

2. The plaintiffs, who figure as respondents 6 & 7 in the revision, filed suit for declaring notice dated 3-7-2004 to be null and void, and for permanent prohibitory injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the functioning of the Association or holding the elections of the Association. The case of the plaintiffs, briefly, is that it is an association of shopkeepers of Purani Mandi area. As per the constitution of the Association, elections of office bearers are held every two years. Such election is to be conducted by President of the Association as Returning Officer or by the person nominated by General House of the Association. Defendant no. 1, Om Parkash Shukla, claiming to be the Election Commissioner under an authorization of the general body issued notice dated 3-7-2004 calling for elections of the Association on 17-07-2004. According to the plaintiffs, he has no right or authority under the Constitution or any resolution of the Association to conduct the elections.

3. On 14-07-2004 the court below while issuing notice to the defendants, by an interim order restrained them from holding the elections on 17-07-2004 or any subsequent date. Unfortunately, despite objections being filed on behalf of the defendants, final order in the injunction matter was not passed with the result that elections of the office bearers of the Association have not been held as yet. In the meantime, the petitioners herein filed application for intervention alleging that they too are bonafide members of the Association, having right to participate in the elections and, therefore, they should be allowed to intervene in the proceedings. The court below, by the impugned order, held that as they are not the President or the General Secretary of the Association, they cannot be allowed to intervene, and accordingly rejected the application.

4. Shri L.K. Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the fact that petitioners are members of the Association is not in dispute. Being members the petitioners cannot be denied permission to intervene in the proceedings. The ground on which the application has been rejected, namely, that they are not the President or General Secretary of the Association, is completely irrelevant.

5. On behalf of respondents 1 to 4 it was submitted that injunction was obtained on suppression of material facts. It was stated that the plaintiffs i.e Jang Bahadur and Rajinder Singh Jamwal had filed nominations as candidates for the post of President and General Secretary but suppressing this fact they instituted the suit challenging the election process. Unfortunately, despite protracted hearing in the injunction matter, the court below did not pass final order resulting in continuance of restraint order. On merit of the petitioners application, it was stated that there is distinction between intervention and addition. Whereas intervention is permissible in terms of Order 1 Rule 8-A of the Code of Civil Procedure on question of law alone, a person can be added as party under Order 1 Rule 10 of the Code if the court is satisfied that he is either a necessary or a proper party. Simply being members of the Association does not mean that they have right to either intervene in the proceedings or be added as party defendants for decision in the suit.

6. The question for consideration is whether the petitioners have made out a case for intervention either under Order 1 Rule 8-A or Order 1 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure. On plain reading of order 1 Rule 8-A it is manifest that a person or a body of persons can be permitted to intervene in the proceeding of the suit where court is satisfied that a question of law is substantially and directly in issue in the suit and it is