Court has jurisdiction to permit plaintiff to sue as representative at the appellate stage.

Plaintiff in O.S. No.411 of 1980 on the file of the Sub Court, Nilgiris at Ootacamund is the appellant in the above second appeal. The said plaintiff filed the suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendants or any of the party men of Indira Congress or anybody claiming through the defendants from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit premises by the plaintiff or its agents.

2. The case of the plaintiff is briefly stated as follows: The suit premises is situate at Lower Bazaar Road commonly known as Kamaraj Bhavan is being used as the office premises of the plaintiff party and the Secretary of the plaintiff party is having control of the said premises. The records of the plaintiff party, both at the District level and the Town level are kept in the said premises. The plaintiff has been in effective possession and enjoyment of the said premises eversince the Janatha Party was formed. The defendants, who are the members of Indira Congress party have been conspiring to take possession of the suit property by force and illegal means. The defendants during the split in congress in the year 1969 have joined Indira Congress and since then they have severed all their ties with the old Congress members which subsequently came to known as Janatha Party in the year 1977 and have never at any time been in possession of the suit premises. The defendants are bent upon entering into the premises by force and commit acts of loot, vandalism, which necessitated the plaintiff to file the present suit.

3. The defendants 1 to 4 have filed a common written statement contending that the plaintiff has no locus standi to file the present suit and Nilgiris District Janatha Party is not a legal entity and therefore the plaintiff is not entitled to file the suit. The defendants are office bearers of Ootacamund Town Congress Committee and to the Nilgiris District Janatha Party. The split of the Congress in the year 1969 has no bearing whatsoever regarding the ownership of the premises in question as the property in question belongs only to Ootacamund Town Congress Committee. The defendants are all law abiding citizens and there is no need for them to take the law into their hands or to indulge in any illegal activities. On the date when the plaintiff has filed the above suit, the plaintiff was not in possession of the suit property, hence the plaintiff is not entitled to the relief of permanent injunction and the suit is liable to be dismissed.

4. P.Ws. 1 to 6 were examined on the side of the plaintiff apart from marking Exs.A-1 to A-21. On the other hand, the first defendant was examined as D. W. 1 and the fourth defendant as D.W.2. They have also marked Exs.B-1 to B-13 in support of their defence. The report of the Commissioner has also been marked as Ex.C-1.

.5. The learned Subordinate Judge, after framing necessary issues and on the basis of the evidence on record held that the plaintiffs are in possession of the suit property and accordingly granted a decree as prayed for with costs.

6. Aggrieved by the judgment and decree of the trial court, the unsuccessful defendants filed an appeal in A.S. No. 12 of 1982 before the District Court, Coimbatore. The lower appellate court on the basis of the evidence confirmed the findings of the trial court with regard to the possession of the plaintiff and accordingly answered the point No.1 in favour of the plaintiff. However on the objection raised by the defendants before the lower appellate court, namely, in the absence of any permission by the court under O.1, Rule 8 of Civil Procedure Code, the suit as framed is not maintainable, allowed the appeal and dismissed the suit filed by the plaintiff holding that it has no locus standi to maintain the suit in the absence of permission under O.1, Rule 8 of Civil Procedure Code.

.7. Against the judgment and decree of the lower appellate court dismissing the suit, the plaintiff has filed the present appeal before th