The central legal point established in the judgment is the application of res judicata, representative capacity, and the authority of the Government in assigning names to areas.

JUDGMENT :

A.K. Rath, J.

Defendant no.2 is the appellant against a reversing judgment.

2. Plaintiff-respondent no.2 instituted the suit for declaration that the decree passed in T.S. No.126 of 1978 is illegal, notification issued pursuant to the decree passed in Title Suit No.126 of 1978 as null and void, declaration that the name of the labour colony is Khapuria Labour Colony and permanent injunction. Case of the plaintiff is that Khapuria Labour Colony is situated at Village-Khapuria. The inception of the colony relates back to the year 1955. People worked in the small industrial units in the industrial estate at Khapuria were living there. The colony spread over some vacant lands in Nuapada village. Government of Orissa in its Labour Department took a decision to name the labour colony as Khapuria Labour Colony. The people of Nuapada are in no way concerned with the Labour Colony. On 15.3.1979, the plaintiff came to know that Fakir Mohan Satpathy, defendant no.2 herein, representing the inhabitants of village Nuapada has filed Title Suit No.126 of 1978 in the court of Munsif, Cuttack to set aside the decision of the State of Orissa in changing the name of Khapuria Labour Colony to Nuapada Labour Colony. The State of Orissa in collusion with the plaintiff did not contest the suit and was set ex parte. The suit was hit under Sec.34 of the Specific Relief Act (in short, “the Act”). The Civil Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit.

3. Defendant no.1 entered contest and filed a written statement denying the assertions made in the plaint. It was pleaded that by order dated 29.2.1968 of the Labour, Employment and Housing Department, Government of Orissa, the old name of Khapuria Labour Colony was renamed as Nuapada Labour Colony. There was no collusion between the plaintiff and the State of Orissa in the earlier suit. The change of name from Khapuria Labour Colony to Nuapada Labour Colony would not affect the administration of Government or any scheme of the Government for improvement of the industrial labourers.

4. Defendant no.2 filed a written statement stating, inter alia, that Title Suit No.126 of 1978 being a suit under Order 1 Rule 8 CPC, the judgment is binding on the plaintiff and other villagers. The present suit is also a representative suit. Provisions contained in Order 1 Rule 8 CPC had not been complied. The plaintiff does not represent the residents of the said Labour Colony. His house is situated in village Tinigharia adjoining village Nuapada. He is not the inhabitant of the said colony. On the application of defendant no.2, an enquiry was conducted by the Revenue Inspector. The colony is within the revenue village of Nuapada.

5. On the inter se pleadings of the parties, learned trial court struck eight issues. Parties led evidence, both oral and documentary, in support of their case. Learned trial court came to hold that the plaintiff has not filed any revenue paper to show that there is any revenue village called Khapuria. No such revenue village called Khapuria exists in any revenue record. Labour Colony situates within the revenue village of Nuapada. The subsequent decision where Government has named it Khapuria Labour Colony is not correct. The plaintiff has filed the suit in the individual capacity. The earlier suit was filed in the representative capacity. The Civil Court had jurisdiction to decide the earlier suit and there was no bar to entertain the suit. Plaintiff failed to prove any collusion or fraud in obtaining the decree in the earlier suit. State had no interest in the matter. Though written statement had been filed by the State, but then it had chosen not to contest the suit. The suit is barred by res judicata. Held so, it dismissed the suit. Felt aggrieved, the plaintiff filed Title Appeal No.54 of 1984 before the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), 1st Court, Cuttack. Learned appellate court allowed the appeal with a finding that the declaration sought for in the earlier suit is unenforce