The main legal point established in the judgment is the necessity of impleading all persons with a common interest in a representative suit, emphasizing the requirement of sameness of interest and community of interest as essential conditions for bringing such a suit.

1. Heard Mr.N.Manokaran, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners.

2. This Revision has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the fair and decreetal order dated 27.11.2008 made in I.A.No.161 of 2008 in O.S.No.34 of 2008 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Tiruchengode. This Suit was filed for granting leave to the plaintiffs to file and prosecute the Suit against the defendants 1 to 4 for themselves and as representatives of the hamlet of Pulla Goundanpatty, Arundhadhiar Colony, Tiruchengode Taluk and interdicting the defendants for themselves and as representatives for the residents of hamlet of Pullangoundampatty, Arunthathiar Colony, Pullagoundampatty village, Tiruchengode Taluk by way of permanent injunction from in any way interfering with the plaintiffs free use of the three suit cart tracks by taking their men, cattle and vehicles to reach their lands in punjai pudupalayam village.

3. The petitioners filed I.A.No.161 of 2008 under Order 1 Rule 8 of Code of Civil Procedure to permit them to sue the respondents/defendants1 to 4 individually and as representatives of the entire body of the residents consisting of more than thirty families of hamlet of Pulla Goundampatty, Arundhadhir colony. The defendants 1 to 4 resisted the claim both on merits and also stating that they are not the representatives of the village.

4. In the Suit, an objection was filed by 28 persons stating that they are the persons residing in Arundhadhiar Street in Pulla Goundampatty and alleging that the second petitioner herein had purchased two houses which were constructed and allotted by the Government to the Arundhadhiar and through that land, he is passing to his agricultural land and the people of that area are objecting to the same. After this objection was placed before the Court by the 28 persons, the petitioners filed a memo stating that the objections raised by the 28 persons was in a piece of paper and no notice has been served on the petitioners and none of the objectors have signed and none of the 28 persons have objected to filing of the Suit arraying the defendants in the representative capacity of the people of the hamlet of Pulla Goundanpatty.

5. The trial Court by its order dated 27.11.2008, dismissed the petition and granted liberty to the petitioners to file a fresh petition impleading the persons who are all having interest over the property. Aggrieved by the said order, the present Revision Petition has been filed.

6. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the trial Court erred in placing much reliance on the objections alleged to have been filed by a group of persons without their signatures and the trial Court ought to have seen that the alleged objection is not to the petition filed under Order 1 Rule 8 CPC and the observation of the trial Court is beyond the scope of Order 1 Rule 8 CPC.

7. In support of his contentions, the learned counsel for the petitioners placed reliance on the following decisions: 1. AIR 1955 MADRAS 281 [ KODIA GOUNDAR AND ANOTHER Vs. VELANDI GOUNDAR AND OTHERS] 2. AIR 1972 KERALA 269 (V.59 C 83 [ NARAYANI KAMALAKSHI AND OTHERS Vs. KUNCHIYAN BAHULAYAN AND OTHERS ] 3. AIR 1987 MADRAS 187 [THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, HINDU RELIGIOUS AND CHARITABLE ENDOWMENT, SALEM AND OTHERS Vs. NATTAMAI K.S.ELLAPPA MUDALIAR AND OTHERS] 4. AIR 2005 CALCUTTA 5 [UMA GUPTA Vs. MAHESH KUMAR PRAHLADKA] 5. AIR 2005 GAUHATI 54 [NAKULESWAR PAUL Vs. STATE OF TRIPRA AND OTHERS] 6. (2007) 1 MLJ 115 [KANGAYAM TALUK, PUBLIC Vs. K.T.MUDALIAR

COMMUNITY WEAVERS] 7. AIR 2009 MADHYA PRADESH 255 [AWADESH OZHA AND OTHERS Vs. RAMACHANDRA MOURYA AND OTHERS]

8. Though the respondents have been served and their names are printed in the cause list, they have neither appeared in person nor entered appearance though counsel.

9. The object for which Order 1 Rule 8 CPC has been enacted is to facilitate the decision of questions in which number of persons are interested. For a representa