THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY Civil Revision Petition No.617 of 2006 ORDER: The first respondent filed O.S.No.360 of 2002 in the Court of II Additional Senior Civil Judge, Kakinada against the second respondent and petitioners herein for a decree to cancel the sale deed, dated 22-02-2002 executed by the second respondent in favour of the petitioners. It was pleaded that the second respondent owes substantial amounts to first respondent and certain others and with a view to keep his assets away from the probable decrees, he sold the property in favour of the petitioners. Petitioners filed written statement taking objection as to the very description of the plaint. According to them, the description is vague and at any rate no permission was obtained as required under Rule 8 of Order 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The application was opposed by the petitioners. Through its order, dated 09-08-2005 the trial Court allowed the I.A. Hence, this Civil Revision Petition. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioners. Though respondents were served with notice, they have not chosen to enter appearance. The first respondent filed the suit by describing himself as representative of the “General Body of Creditors of the first defendant”. Inasmuch as it was filed in representative capacity, the permission under Rule 8 of Order 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure was necessary. Obviously, by treating the plaint as the one presented by an individual, the trial Court appears to have numbered it. When the petitioners raised objection, the first respondent filed I.A. to cure the defect. The trial Court allowed the I.A. Neither from the text of Rule 8 of Order 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, nor from any other decided case it is necessary that the permission under that provision must be obtained before the institution of the suit. Further, the Rule does not stipulate that all the persons who are represented must be mentioned in one form or the other. It is clear to the effect that permission can be accorded either to one or some of the body of persons. At any rate, the suit cannot be compared to proceedings under the Provincial Insolvency Act, where full details of creditors on the one hand and properties on the other is necessary. The subject matter of the suit is sale deed. The other persons become necessary only in the event of the sale being declared. Further, it is not as if the body of persons have any vested interest as of now. In the event of suit being decreed, the interested persons have to approach the Court to prove their rights and it is only in the course of enforcement of their rights or claims, that the furnishing of full particulars would become necessary. The petitioners cannot be said to have suffered any detriment. The Civil Revision Petition is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. ____________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY, J. 08th October, 2009. skmr THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY Civil Revision Petition No.617 of 2006 Date : 08-10-2009 Between : Narava Srinivasa Rao & another .. Petitioners And N.Satyanarayana Reddy & another .. Respondents