( 1 ) THE non-petitioner No. 1 (plaintiff) filed a suit against the petitioners 1 to 4 for permanent injunction and damages.

( 2 ) PETITIONER No. 1 is Saraf and Swarankar Samiti, Morar, which is an unregistered body while petitioners 2 to 4 are its office-bearers. The case of the plaintiff is that he is a member of Saraf and Swarankar Samiti, Morar. The plaintiff (non-petitioner no. 1) is working as Saraf at Morar and carries on business of manufacture and sale of silver ornaments and other articles. He obtains goods on loan from other gold-smiths for his business and sells them to his customers. According to the plaintiff, defendants Nos. 2 to 4 (petitioners 2 to 4) are illegally bringing pressure on other members of Swarnkar Samiti so as to compel the plaintiff to stop his business and petitioners 1 to 4 (defendants 1 to 4) have passed a resolution against the plaintiff to the effect that all the members of the Samiti shall not transact business with the plaintiff. This has affected his business. He, therefore, filed a suit for permanent injunction restraining them from obstructing other goldsmiths in dealing with the plaintiff in connection with his business and he also claimed an amount of Rs. 400/- as damages. ( 3 ) SINCE the Swarnkar Samiti is not a juristic person the plaintiff submitted an application under Order 1, Rule 8 of the Code of Civil Procedure for permission to sue the defendants in their representative capacity. The application though opposed by the defendants was allowed by the impugned order. Being aggrieved thereby the defendants filed this revision petition.

( 4 ) WHEN the case came up before Shiv Dayal, J. he noticed an apparent conflict of views in G. I. P. Rly. Senior Institute v. Mohit Kumar. AIR 1954 Nag 29. relied upon by the defendants and Municipal Council, Shivpuri v. Sugar Dealers' Association shivpuri. Civil Revn. No. 26 of 1963 D/- 19-1-1970 (Madh Pra) relied upon by the plaintiff. As both these decisions are of different Judges sitting singly he submitted the case to the Hon'ble the Chief Justice for constituting a larger Bench for the decision of the following question: "whether permission can be granted under Order 1. Rule 8 of the Code of Civil Procedure to sue an unregistered society or committee in a representative capacity. "

( 5 ) IN G. I. P. Railway Senior Institute v. Mohit Kumar, AIR 1954 Nag 29, the plaintiff had claimed refund of a sum of Rs. 500/- alleged to have been deposited by him with the Railway Institute by way of security together with interest thereon and recovery of arrears of salary. After the written statement was filed the plaintiff applied for an amendment of the plaint and also made an application under Order 1, Rule 8 of the Code of Civil Procedure to sue the defendants in their representative capacity that is as members of the G. I. P. Railway Institute as the institute was not a juristic person. The application was allowed. The defendants, thereupon, filed a revision petition which was allowed by Mudholkar, J. (as he then was ). The following observations in paragraph 10 are pertinent. "the question then is whether the provisions of Order 1, Rule 8, Civil P. C. can be resorted to in this case. It seems to me that Order 1, Rule 8 would apply only where there is a properly constituted suit before the court. Where a suit is brought against an unregistered and nonproprietary club it is not a proper suit at all and therefore to such a suit the provisions of Order 1, Rule 8 cannot be applied. "

( 6 ) IN Municipal Council. Shivpuri v. Sugar Dealers' Association, Shivpuri, Civil revn. No. 26 of 19 (58. D/-19-1-1970 (Madh. Pra. ). Golvalkar, J. granted leave to the plaintiff to file a suit under Order 1, Rule 8 of the Code of Civil Procedure as the Association was not a registered body. It seems that the decision of the nagpur High Court was not brought to his notice because (there is no reference to it in the order,

( 7 ) FOR considering the question whether per