JUDGMENT

1. This appeal raises an interesting point. Govind, Dallu and Kallu, all by caste Kalwars, were aggrieved by certain Hindus and Muhammadans, refusing to allow them to draw water from five wells and thereupon Govind, Dallu and Kallu purporting to act on behalf of all the members of their brotherhood filed a plaint what was, as we shall show most clearly, intended to be a representative and not a personal suit against some 18 defendants. The plaintiffs omitted to obtain the permission which is required by O.1, Rule 8. That fact did not appear to be noticed by the defendants. It was undoubtedly a matter of discussion before the Munsif, who, however, in our opinion, did not approach the matter properly when he had found that the plaintiffs were themselves alleging that the suit was one under Order 1, Rule 8. It was his duty to study the provisions of Order 1, Rule 8, and he would then have seen that before he was entitled to hear the suit at all permission had to be granted by a competent Court declaring that the plaintiffs were entitled to present a representative suit.

2. Order 1, Rule 8 has two intentions. The first is to see that the suit which is proposed to be lodged is pr