The defendant No.3 in OS.No.396/2021, on the file of

Principal Civil Judge, JMFC, Mysuru, has filed this writ petition

challenging an order dated 22.02.2022, passed therein by which

the Court directed the plaintiff to publish the notice of the suit in

newspaper.

2. The

suit

in

OS.No.396/2021

was

filed

in

a

representative capacity to protect the interest of the general

public in 25% of the land in the suit schedule properties, which

was supposedly to be earmarked for economically weaker

section in an order passed by the defendant No.5 on 18.11.1998

vide bearing No.NaAaE26:NaBhuMy98, Bengaluru. The plaintiff

alleged that the defendant No.1 had illegally transferred the

entire land to the defendant No.2 in terms of sale deed dated

13.03.2001, 15.03.2001 and 07.06.2001. The defendant No.2

seems to have thereafter executed release deed dated

31.05.2008 in favour of defendant No.3. The plaintiffs therefore

sought for a declaration that the sale deeds 13.03.2001,

15.3.2001

and

07.6.2001

have

no

legal

sanctity

and

consequently sought for mandatory injunction to stop the

4

defendant Nos.1 to 3 from forming a residential layout and

reserve 25% of the sites to the economically weaker section.

The Trial Court issued notice in the suit which was served to the

defendants. The defendant No.3 filed an application under Order

VII Rule 11 (a) and (d) of CPC for rejection of plaint. The trial

Court entertained an application under Order 1 Rule 8 of CPC

and directed the plaintiff to publish the notice of the suit in a

newspaper as the beneficiaries were large in number and were

not identifiable. It is this order which is challenged in this writ

petition.

3.

Learned counsel for the defendant No.3 submits that

even before the application filed by the defendant No.3 is

considered if the trial court issues a paper publication of the

notice of the suit, then that would open a Pandora's box and

various third parties will unnecessarily participate in the suit. He

further submits that this will give rise to multiplicity of

proceedings and therefore, the trial Court ought to have waited

to bought the defendants submitted their defense and after

considering the application filed by them under Order VII Rule 11

(a) and (d) of CPC.

5

4.

The averments of the plaint clearly indicate that it

was filed on behalf of all the persons having the same interest.

Once the trial Court had permitted such a suit to be filed under

Order 1 Rule 8 of CPC, it is the duty of the Court to serve the

notice to all the persons interested by personal service. If there

are more number of persons to whom service is not reasonably

practicable then the Court may order public advertisement. In

the present case, the Court has precisely done that and has

directed the plaintiff to cause a public advertisement in

newspaper. The defendants cannot have any grievance against

the procedure adopted by the trial Court, as the plaint averment

clearly indicate that the plaintiff were suing on behalf of many

other persons who were similarly situated. There is no error in

the order directing public advertisements of the court notice in

the newspaper.

Hence, this writ petition lacks merit and is dismissed.

Sd/-

JUDGE

PK