V.M. Velumani, J.

This Civil Revision Petition is filed to set aside the fair and decretal order dated 17.06.2014 made in I.A. No. 1344 of 2013 in O.S. No.528 of 2013 on the file of the Additional District Civil Judge, Namakkal.

2. The petitioners are defendants and respondents are plaintiffs in O.S. No. 528 of 2013 on the file of the Additional District Civil Judge, Namakkal. The respondents filed the said suit against the petitioners for permanent injunction against the Konur Village Mudaliar community, Namakkal Taluk and District. The petitioners shown as defendants for themselves and as the representative of Konur village, Mudaliar community. Along with the suit, the respondents filed I.A. No. 1344 of 2013 under Order 1, Rule 8 of C.P.C for permission to sue the petitioners and their community people in representative capacity. They also filed application for injunction pending suit. Suit was numbered and ex parte injunction was granted and notice was ordered in I.A. No. 1344 of 2013 filed under Order 1, Rule 8 of C.P.C for permission to sue the petitioners and their community people in representative capacity. According to the respondents, there is an enmity between the Mudaliar and Gounder community and there is a dispute with regard to the pathway XY mentioned in the plan filed along with the plaint. The respondents and their ancestors from time immemorial are using the said pathway. The people from Mudaliar community are trying to block the pathway XY and are trying to cut down the trees belonging the respondents and are threatening to destroy Septic tank and tank for rain water harvesting. For the above reason, the respondents have filed the above suit.

3. The petitioners entered appearance and filed counter affidavit in I.A. No. 1344 of 2013. According to the petitioners, the respondents ought to have first obtained the permission to sue in a representative capacity and then only filed the suit. The suit filed without permission is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed. The petitioners are not elders or representatives of their community. There are elders of the community and the respondents without any reasons impleaded the petitioners as representatives of their community according to their whims and fancies. The respondents have not stated what is the common interest which enables them to file the suit in a representative capacity against Mudaliar community.

4. The learned Judge considering the averments in the affidavit, counter affidavit and judgments relied on by the counsel for the respondents, allowed the application on the ground that there is no prohibition for granting permission under Order 1, Rule 8 of C.P.C after the suit was taken on file. The learned Judge also held that paper publication and notice was affixed in the village office as well as tom-tom was effected. The people from mudaliar community have appeared and petitioners have expressed their unwillingness to represent the community and the dispute between the two community is common to all the people of two community.

5. Against the said order dated 17.06.2014 made in I.A. No.1344 of 2013 in O.S. No.528 of 2013, the petitioners have come out with the present Civil Revision Petition.

6. The learned counsel for the petitioners reiterated the averments in the counter affidavit filed in the application and in support of his contentions, relied on the judgment reported in (2013) 8 MLJ 585 (S.R.Nanda Kishore v. Body of Villagers of No.29, Mambakkam Village, Chengalpattu Taluk and others):

"30. When the suit was filed against the elected village panchayat of Mambakkam village, three individuals of the said village cannot represent the entire village people and further, it is mandatory on the part of the plaintiff to follow the mandatory procedure, as contemplated under Order 1, Rule 8 of the Code of Civil Procedure. However, without obtaining leave from the Court below, the suit was filed by three individuals of the village, as if they repre