Suit in representative capacity can be allowed.

The appellants in the first appeal in A. S. No. 4/2004 are the revision petitioners herein. The revision petition is filed against the order of the first Appellate Court passed in I.A. No. 18/2005 in A.S. No. 4/2004 on 30.9.2005. The respondents 1 to 5 have filed a suit for declaration and permanent injunction against the petitioners herein who are defendants 4,5,7,8 and 9 and also other defendants restraining them from interfering with their rights and privileges in the suit temple and also to perform certain festival.

2. The petitioners herein who were subsequently impleaded as defendants 4,5,7,8 and 9 in the suit have filed the petitions to implead them under Order 1 Rule 10 of Civil Procedure Code and as per the order in I.A. No. 499 of 1999 in O.S. No. 191 of 1991 dated 6.7.2000 they were impleaded as representing the village and people living in Thoppur Village as their representatives. The said suit was decreed as against which the defendants 4,5,7,8 and 9 have filed appeal in A.S. No. 4/2004 before the Sub-Court, Aruppukottai in their individual names. Thereafter, in February 2005 the petitioners filed I.A. No. 18/2005 in A.S.No.4/2004 under Order 6 Rule 7 of C.P.C to permit the petitioners to amend the appeal short cause title by describing them as for themselves and as well as the representatives of Thoppur Village. It was that application filed under Order 6 Rule 7 of C. P. C which was dismissed against which the present revision petition is filed.

3. Mr. Saravanan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that while admittedly, the petitioners were impleaded in the suit filed by the respondents for declaration and injunction as representatives of the Thoppur Village people and the same has been finally decided in this Court in C.R.P. No. 1746 and 1747/2001 dated 6.11.2001, nonmentioning of the names of the petitioners as appellants in the grounds of appeal as representing the people of Thoppur Village is only a technical error and therefore, in the interest of justice, it should have been allowed by the Appellate Court. The dismissal of the said application by the first appellate Court is illegal and against the provisions of the Civil Procedure Code.

4. On the other hand, Mr. T.V. Sivakumar, learned counsel appearing for the respondents would submit that the allegations of non-mentioning of the petitioners names in the appeal as for themselves and representing the people of Thoppur Village can never be taken as a mistake. According to the learned counsel, the petitioners have consciously filed interlocutory application before the Trial Court for impleading them for themselves and on behalf of the villagers and after the suit was decreed when they have filed the appeal they had two status of filing of appeal either for themselves or themselves along with the village people as their representatives. They have consciously filed the appeal only on their behalf and therefore, they have given up their right of representing the villagers. Their right by way of amendment to represent, the village after a long lapse of time and after the period of limitation is over for the purpose of filing appeal for and on behalf of the village. Allowing such application for amendment will be not only against the provisions of the Limitation Act but also such an order cannot be passed by way of an amendment. Even assuming that the petitioners have filed the appeal in their names, the only way open to them is to file another application seeking permission from the first Appellate Court to represent in the appeal on the behalf of the villagers. Therefore, according to the learned counsel for the respondents, the order of the Trial Court is perfectly in order.

5. The learned counsel also placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court rendered in Tamil Nadu Alloy Foundry Co. Ltd. v. Tamil Nadu Electricity Board and others 2004-3-LW 732 and submit that the Courts must take into consideration as to whether a fresh