2025:HHC:40170 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA.

CMPMO No. 652 of 2024 Decided on: 26.11.2025 ___________________________________________._________

Nand Lal H ……….. Petitioner Versus Roshan Lal and Ors. ……….respondents _____________________________o_______________________

Coram:

Hon'ble Mr. Justice Bipin Chander Negi, Judge Whether approved for reporting? ¹ For the petitioner : Mr. Neeraj Gupta, Sr. Advocate, with Mr. Harshit Sharma, Advocate.

For the respondents : Mr. Aman Parth Shrama, Advocate.

____________________________________________________

Bipin Chander Negi, Judge ( oral)

The present petition has been preferred laying a challenge to the impugned order dated 05.10.2024, passed by the learned Civil Judge Court No. 2, Ghumarwin, District Bilaspur, H.P. (Annexure-P5), whereby the present respondents/plaintiffs have been permitted to institute a suit in a representative capacity on behalf of all co-sharers.

2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the pleadings.

3. The sole contention urged on behalf of the petitioner is that at the time of filing of the suit, no list along with the application under Order 1 Rule 8 of CPC giving the names,

1 Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

parentage and details of all persons on whose behalf the suit was purported to be filed, had been provided. .

4. Learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner contends that on account of the aforesaid flaw, the application under Order 1 Rule 8 of CPC filed before the Trial Court, which had been allowed by thef impugned order dated 05.10.2024 was defective and therefore, the same should have been rejected. It is further contended that the publication done in pursuance to the impugned order dated 05.10.2024 therefore is also defective.

5. Per contra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents/plaintiffs submits that there exists no defect in the publication made in pursuance to the impugned order and neither in law is he required to file a list along with his application under Order 1 Rule 8 of CPC giving the names, parentage and idetails of all persons on whose behalf the suit purported to be filed.

6. In so far as the contention of the learned Senior Counsel, appearing on behalf of the petitioner is concerned with respect to filing of list along with an application under Order 1 Rule 8 of CPC, giving the names, parentage and details of all persons on whose behalf the suit is purported to be filed, learned Senior Counsel has placed reliance upon the judgment of a Co- ordinate Bench of this Court passed in RSA No. 435 of 2005 titled Devi Singh and others vs. Chairman, Managing Committee, DAV Public School Chitar Gupt Road, New Delhi and others, dated 19.11.2009. In view of the law so pronounced, it is incumbent upon the respondents in the case at hand to have filed a list along with his application Under Order 1 Rule 8 of CPC, giving the names, parentage and details of all persons on whose behalf the suit is purported to be fifled.

7. Since a list in this respect had not been furnished, therefore, the Trial Court should not have passed the impugned order, dated 05.10.2024 granting permission to the present respondents/plaintiffs to institute the suit on behalf of other co- sharers. Other than the aforesaid, I have perused the publication made in furtherance to the impugned order dated 05.10.2024.

The same is placed at page 59 of the paper book.

8. Provisions of Order 1 Rule 8 of CPC are mandatory and not directory in nature and notice under Order 1 Rule 8(2) of iCPC is an essential pre-condition for trial of the suit. Besides the aforesaid, Courts must see that if they direct that the notice should be by public advertisement, then the same must disclose the nature of the suit as well as the reliefs claimed therein in order to enable the persons interested to get themselves impleaded as parties to the suit either to support the case or to defend against it. Further, the notice