A decree passed in a suit under Order 1, Rule 8, C. P. C. binds all persons represented in the suit, regardless of whether they are parties on the record.

Heard learned coun sel for the parties.

2. By means of this petition, petitioner prays for issuance of a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the order dated 27-8-1999 whereby the objection filed by the petitioner in Execution Case No. 12 of 1999 was dismissed by the trial Court and the order dated 15-11-1999 whereby the revision filed by the petitioner against the judgment and order passed by the trial Court has been dismissed by the Court below.

3. Facts of the case giving rise to the present petition are that original suit No. 672 of 1998 was filed by the Respondent Nos. 2 and"3 under Order 1, Rule 8, C. P. C. for permanent prohibitory injunction restraining the defendants from publish ing, selling or demonstrating for sale the books under the title and made name "bal Bharti" or with similar or with deceptively similar title, name or trade name or with similar get up in contravention of their Copyright. The said suit after contest was decreed by the Civil Court on 11-1-1999. The said decree was affirmed upto the stage of Supreme Court. The petitioner and other persons thereafter attempted to violate the said decree, consequently the contesting respondents put the said decree in execu tion. In the execution proceedings objec tions were filed under Section 47, C. P. C. by the petitioner and other persons contending that they were not parties in the aforesaid suit and the decree passed in the said suit was not binding upon the objectors. The trial Court/execution Court after hearing the parties and perusing the relevant materials on the record came to the conclusion that the decree passed in the said suit was ex ecutable and had binding effect upon the petitioner and other persons. Having recorded the said findings the execution Court dismissed the objection by its judg ment and order dated 7-8-1999.

4. Challenging the validity of the said order a revision was filed before the Dis trict Judge, Bulandshahr, which ultimately came to the file of incharge District Judge, Bulandshahr. The revisional Court also

dismissed the revision and upheld the order passed by the execution Court by its judgment and order dated 15- 11-1999, hence the present petition.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently urged that the Courts below have acted illegally in holding that the decree passed in the Suit No. 672 of 1998 was bind ing on the petitioner. It was contended that the petitioner was not party in the said suit, therefore, was not bound by the said decree.

6. On the other hand learned counsel appearing for the contesting respondents supported the judgment and orders passed by the Courts below and contended that the petitioner was bound by the judgment and decree passed in the said suit.

7. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner. Same controversy as is involved in the present petition was involved in Writ Petition No. 2657 of 2000, Prakashak Gurdev Computers v. State of U. P. and others, which was dismissed by this Court by judgment and order dated 19-1-2000. In the said writ peti tion by this Court it was held as under:

"it is not disputed that Suit No. 672 of 1998 was filed under Order 1, Rule 8, C. P. C. It is well settled in law that to such a suit Explanation VI to Section 11, C. P. C. applies and a decree passed in such a suit ensures to the benefit of, or binds, all the persons so represented in the suit, al though they are not actually parties on the record. Sub-rule (6) of Rule 8 of Order 1, C. P. C. enacts that a decree passed in a suit under the said Rule shall be binding on all persons on whose behalf or on whose benefit the suit is instituted or defended, as the case may be. A reference in this regard may be made to the decision of the apex Court in AIR 1964sc 107.

After perusing the material on the record, the Court below held as under:

"it is clear from the perusal of judgment and order that a suit under the Order 1, Rule 8 was filed by fir