ORDER :

The revision has been filed against the order and decree passed by the District Munsif, Tiruvarur dated 20.1.2017 in I.A.No. 410 of 2013 in O.S.No.165 of 2013 dismissing the petition filed under Order I Rule 8 CPC.

2. The petitioners are the plaintiffs in the suit.

3. The plaintiffs had filed the suit on behalf of themselves and the Mirasudars and village representatives of Pullatheru Village. The suit 'A' schedule properties in the Sundaravilagam revenue village are administered by the village Mirasudars and the villagers of Pullatheru Village for the expenses of the Arulmighu Pidari Mayiliamman temple. The suit 'B' schedule properties belong to the village community and 'C' schedule properties are the water bodies in the village. The fishing rights of 'C' schedule properties have been with the villagers and the income derived therefrom was used for the public purposes and the welfare of the village. Since the above properties were not properly maintained by the earlier Administrator Manicka Vanniar, the Mirasudars and villagers of Pullatheru village had earlier filed a suit in O.S.No.301 of 1975 for production of accounts and mesne profits. The said suit was decreed in favor of the Mirasudars and villagers on 30.6.1977 and against that judgment decree, the said Manicka Vanniar filed first appeal in A.S.No.171 of 1977 which was dismissed on 3.3.1978. Against the dismissal of the first appeal, the said Manicka Vanniar filed second appeal in S.A.No.1742 of 1979 and the second appeal was also dismissed by this court on 26.10.1979. Thereafter, an Execution Petition was filed and the properties belonging to the villagers were recovered and handed over to the villagers. 'A' schedule properties were administered and maintained by the Mirasudars and villagers by the elected Committees and the income derived from the properties were used for the expenses of the temple and the income derived from the 'B' schedule and 'C' schedule properties were used for the public purposes of the village.

4. Whileso, the defendants fraudulently sold the suit properties belonging to the village by registered documents dated 18.8.2004, 2.2.2011 and 31.12.2008. Thereby, the plaintiffs having a community interest, filed the suit in O.S.No. 165 of 2013 to declare the sale deeds as void.

5. The petitioners have also filed I.A.No.410 of 2013 in O.S.No.165 of 2013 under Order I Rule 8 CPC seeking permission to sue on behalf of the villagers having similar interest.

6. The Trial Court, by order dated 2.12.2013 allowed the petition and passed the following order:-

"The petition is allowed in the interest of justice, however the petitioner is directed to give notice to the concerned persons under Order I Rule 8(2) CPC."

7. Subsequently, on 13.12.2013, the court directed the petitioners to give notice to the persons, who are being represented by him in accordance with Order I Rule 8(2) CPC by 2.1.2014. The petitioners, in due compliance of the order, effected public notice by paper publication. The petitioners, in order to prove that they have a community interest, had filed a copy of the judgment in O.S.No.301 of 1975 dated 30.6.1977 and they also filed a copy of the suit register dated 6.11.2013 to prove that earlier a petition had been filed in respect of the very same properties on behalf of Pullatheru Mirasudars. When the matter was listed on 2.1.2014, a vakalat was filed by a counsel by name Mr.T.P.S.Manickam for objectors 1 to 60 and another vakalat was filed by another counsel for the objectors 61 to 91 and the matter was adjourned to 30.1.2014 for filing of objections and counters by the respondents, however, on 30.1.2014, at the request of the counsel for the respondents, the matter was again adjourned to 28.2.2014 and again to 24.3.2014 and thereafter on 10.6.2014, the first respondent had filed a written statement and thereafter the matter was listed on several dates and the matter was posted for inquiry and finally on 20.1.2017, the Trial Judge had