IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD FRIDAY, THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND NINE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD Civil Revision Petition No.2333 of 2009 Between: P. Suryaprakash Reddy and others .. Petitioners AND Sri Krishna Nagar Welfare Association .. Respondent ORDER: Heard Sri B. Nalin Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioners, and Sri P. Panduranga Reddy, learned counsel representing Sri P. Venkat Reddy, learned counsel for the respondent. The petitioners are aggrieved by the order of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Sangareddy, in I.A.No.2156 of 2008 in O.S.No.765 of 2005, dated 06-02-2009. That petition was filed by the respondent herein under Order I Rule 8 of the Code of Civil Procedure to prosecute the suit on behalf of and for the benefit of its members claimed to be interested in the respective plots forming part of Sy.No.964 of Ameenpur village, Patancheru Mandal, Medak District. The suit was filed for perpetual injunction against the revision petitioners and their men etc., in respect of the said land and the revision petitioners opposed the said petition contending that permission under Order I Rule 8 of the Code of Civil Procedure could not have been granted at that belated stage, apart from the objects of the society not providing for the association dealing with the individual rights of its members in respect of their individual properties. The trial Court in the impugned order noted that the members of the society are interested in the plots existing in the suit schedule property and Order I Rule 8 of the Code of Civil Procedure allows the society to be the representative in interest for all its members in respect of their interest in the subject land. The revision petitioners are aggrieved that firstly, the society has no interest in the suit property and secondly, its objects do not enable it to litigate on behalf of the members in respect of the property and thirdly, the parameters of Order 1 Rule 8 of the Code of Civil Procedure are violated in the permission given by the trial Court. Order I Rule 8 of the Code of Civil Procedure enables one or more of numerous persons having the same interest in one suit to sue or to be sued, with the permission of the Court, on behalf of or for the benefit of all persons so interested. The Rule provides for general notice of such request, apart from personal notice to persons interested and the consequential steps to be ordered. As such, the basic prerequisite for application of Order I Rule 8 is whether all the numerous persons sought to be represented by one or more persons among them have the same interest in the suit. The claim of the society herein is that its members are interested in the individual house plots in Sy.No.964 and the society has among its objects the protection of rights of the association people. Whether the said object of the society about the protection of rights of the people of the association would comprehend within its scope the protection of rights of the individual members in respect of their individual house plots or not, is a question that needs to be determined on merits after trial. Similarly, whether the society, which consists of numerous persons owning plots in the suit property, can itself be considered to have an interest in the suit property by virtue of its aims, objects and rules is also a question to be gone into with reference to the pleadings and evidence of the parties on these aspects. While, ex facie, proceeding with the suit after granting initial permission to the plaintiff society under Order I Rule 8 of the Code of Civil Procedure does not appear to be flawed, the questions raised by the petitioners can be left open to be determined on merits in the suit after trial. Therefore, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed without costs, while leaving open the questions raised by the revision petitioners in respect of the permission granted to the respondent under Order I Rule 8 of the Code of Civil Procedure to be determined on merits in accordance with law after trial in the suit uninfluenced by any observations made in the impugned order or this order. _____________________ G. BHAVANI PRASAD, J Date: 23-10-2009 Ksn