COMMON ORDER

For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their rank in the Court below.

2. Claiming themselves as representatives of Agriculturists of

24 Manai Telungu Chettiyargal Uravinmurai at Lingapuram Village, Panthalkudi, the respondent Nos.1 and 2 in C.R.P.(MD).No.581 of 2016 and the petitioners in C.R.P.(MD).No.747 of 2016 / plaintiffs, have filed a suit in O.S.No.283 of 2015 before the District Munsif Court, Aruppukottai, against the revision petitioners in C.R.P.(MD).No.581 of 2016 and the respondents 1 and 2 in C.R.P.(MD).No.747 of 2016 / defendants, who are the representatives of 24 Manai Telungu Chettiyargal Uravinmurai at Lingapuram Street, Panthalkudi Village, Aruppukottai Taluk, Virudhunagar District; Panthalkudi Panchayat Board and Electricity Board. The suit is filed for permanent injunction, restraining the defendants 1 and 2 from interfering with the use of the suit property by the plaintiffs as Kalam (Thrash ground); the 3rd defendant from issuing an order permitting the defendants to put up any construction and the 4th defendant from giving electricity connection for the construction of any building on the suit property and for mandatory injunction to the defendants 1 and 2 to close the pit dug up in the land in question within a stipulated time.

3. Pending suit, the plaintiffs had filed two interlocutory applications ie., one in I.A.No.1497 of 2015 under Order 1 Rule 8 CPC, seeking permission of the Court to file the suit in representative capacity and another in I.A.No.1500 of 2015 for appointment of an Advocate Commissioner to find out the physical features. After contest, both the applications were allowed by the Trial Court. While allowing the application in I.A.No.1497 of 2015, the Trial Court imposed a condition that the plaintiffs should implead all the objectors as defendants in the suit. Aggrieved against the condition imposed in I.A.No.1497 of 2015, the plaintiffs have filed C.R.P.(MD).No.747 of 2016. Aggrieved against the order made in I.A.No.1500 of 2015, the defendants 1 and 2 have filed C.R.P.(MD).No.581 of 2016.

4. The learned counsel for the plaintiffs would submit that the Court below has rightly allowed both the interlocutory applications filed by the plaintiffs. But, while allowing the interlocutory application filed seeking permission of the Court to file the suit in representative capacity, the trial Judge has erroneously imposed a condition that the plaintiffs should implead 265 persons/objectors, which is unwarranted. He would further submit that the very same counsel, who appeared for the defendants in the suit, already filed vakalat for all those objectors. Hence, if the objectors wanted to be impleaded in the suit, they can do so and get themselves impleaded. Therefore, the direction given by the Trial Court to the plaintiffs to implead 265 objectors as a condition for allowing the interlocutory application is impracticable. The defendants in the suit already dragging on the injunction petition filed by the plaintiffs and at the same time, they are also proceeding with the process of putting up permanent construction. Only with a view to drag on the injunction petition, the defendants have instigated the alleged objectors. Hence, he prayed to set aside the order passed in I.A.No.1497 of 2015 in respect of the said condition alone. In support of his arguments, the learned counsel relied on the following decisions:-

i) (2013) 4 MLJ 715 (N.Bheeman v. N.Bhojan)

ii) 2014-3-L.W.626 (F.J.Jerome & Ors v. P.Vijayakumar & Ors)

5. The learned counsel for the defendants would submit that the trial Court has rightly allowed the interlocutory application filed by the plaintiffs seeking permission of the Court to file the suit in representative capacity with a condition to implead the 265 objectors as defendants in the suit. In support of his submission, he relied on the judgment reported in 2015 (1) MWN (Civil) 505 (Vellaigounder @ Kuppu v. Chinnasevi Gounder).

6. The learned coun