The provisions of Order 1, Rule 8 (4), CPC, which require notice to be given to all persons interested in a representative suit before the suit can be withdrawn or compromised, do not apply to proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

S. D. AGARWALA, J.

( 1 ) THIS is an application for review moved in Writ Petition No. 676 of 1983, Dr. Iqbal Hasan khan v. The 3rd Additional District Judge, Aligarh, and others. The review application has been moved by two applicants. S. M. Zahid Hasan and Khurshiduzzaman Khan. They were not parties to the petition.

( 2 ) THE writ petition had been filed by Dr. Iqbal Hasan Khan for issue of a Writ. Order or direction in the nature of a Writ of Certiorari quashing the order of the learned 3rd Additional district Judge. Aligarh. dt. 14th Dec. 1982.

( 3 ) BRIEFLY, the facts giving rise to the present petition are as under :--Dr. Iqbal Hasan Khan, the petitioner, filed a Suit No. 345 of 1982 against respondents Nos. 2 to 19 in the court of the Munsif, Koil, Aligarh, for the appointment of a receiver of the Aligarh muslim University Old Boys Association, to hold elections of the said Association and to hand over the properties of the said Association to the newly elected office-bearers. A further prayer was made in the said suit that the defendants of the suit be restrained from holding elections of 25 representatives of the Association to the Executive Council. A further relief was sought against the defendants directing them to render all accounts of income and expenditure with effect from 1970.

( 4 ) THIS suit was filed under Order 1. Rule 8, CPC as a representative suit on behalf of the entire body of the members of the Aligarh Muslim University Old Boys Association (hereinafter referred to as the Association ). The membership was alleged to be 1000 in number. After the filing of the suit, an application was made for the appointment of an ad interim receiver. This application was contested by the parties. Ultimately, by an order dated 1st Dec. 1982, the Munsif appointed Sri Zaki Uddin Khairoowala, Advocate, as a receiver with a direction that he would take over charge and possession of the movable and immovable properties of the Association. would call the meeting of the general body of the Association and shall hold elections of the members of the General Body. The order dated 1st Dec. 1982. was challenged by means of a misc. Civil Appeal! No. 220 of 1982 by the defendants, who are respondents Nos. 2 to 19 in the present petition. The 3rd Additional District Judge, Aligarh, by his order dated 14th Dec. 1982. allowed the appeal and the application moved for an ad interim order by the plaintiff petitioner was refected. Aggrieved by the decision dated 14th Dec. 1982. the present petition was filed in this Court.

( 5 ) THIS petition came up for final hearing before me. I heard the parties at length. During the course of arguments, the parties compromised their dispute outside the Court and it was stated before me that the parties are agreed that the elections of the representatives of the Association be held under the supervision of an officer authorised by this Court. It was also agreed that the elections of the Central Executive Committee and its office bearers be also held. An agreement was also arrived at in regard to the expenses for conducting the elections and it was also agreed that the elections will be held within a period of two months. These terms of the agreement were incorporated by me in my order dated 10th Mar. 1983, and I directed the District Judge. Aligarh, either, to himself act as an officer for the purpose of holding elections and after the elections had been held, the properties of the Association be handed over to the newly elected Central executive Committee.

( 6 ) IN pursuance of the order of this Court, on 16th Mar. 1983, the election of 25 representatives of the Association to, the University Court was held and before the elections of the Central executive Committee could be held, the present review application has been filed by the applicants.

( 7 ) LEARNED counsel for the applicants has contended that since the petition was disposed of in view of the agreement arrived at between the parties, the pro

Click Here to Read the rest of this document