C.R. No. 3309 of 2011 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.R. No. 3309 of 2011 Date of Decision: May 19, 2011 Subhash Chand and another …..Petitioners Vs. Nirmal Singh and others …..Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M.S. BEDI. -.- Present:- Mr.Anil Shukla, Advocate for the petitioners. -.- M.M.S. BEDI, J. (ORAL) Nirmal Singh- respondent No.1 had filed a suit for permanent injunction to restrain the defendant- petitioner and Municipal Council- respondent No.5 from alienating the property in any manner besides claiming mandatory injunction against the defendant- petitioners to dismantle and remove the construction raised over the property in dispute. An objection regarding the non-maintainability of the suit in representative capacity was challenged by referring to the provisions of Section 91 CPC C.R. No. 3309 of 2011 [2] i.e. the suit in representative capacity can be filed by two or more persons having interest in the property. Since the suit had been filed by one person it was liable to be dismissed. Vide impugned order, the lower Appellate Court has allowed an application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC filed by respondents No.2, 3 and 4 and permitted them to be impleaded as plaintiffs alongwith plaintiff- respondent No.1 Nirmal Singh. Counsel for the defendant- petitioners has vehemently contended that by permitting respondents No.2 to 4 to be impleaded as plaintiffs, the preliminary objection on the basis of which the suit could have been dismissed would become ineffective. It is claimed that a right had accrued to the defendant-petitioners to get the suit dismissed on legal ground but by allowing the application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC, a great prejudice has been caused to the defendant-petitioners. I have heard counsel for the petitioners at length. I agree with the counsel for the defendants that a important plea to defend the suit of plaintiff- respondent No.1 had been raised and by permitting the application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC, the objections have been nullified but at the same time this fact cannot be ignored that the suit is at initial stage. Even if the suit had been dismissed on the technical ground the second suit on behalf of the persons actually interested in the property in dispute or a fresh suit in a proper forum under Section 91 CPC could have been filed. In the present case it appears that suit had been filed under Order 1 Rule 8 CPC by one person where numerous persons had the same interest. Whether the C.R. No. 3309 of 2011 [3] permission to sue under Order 1 Rule 8 (a) CPC had been sought or not is not apparent. Besides this, neither any leave of the Court as required under Section 91 (1) (b) CPC had been sought nor the suit appears to be under Section 91 CPC. In view of the above circumstances, I do not find any illegality in the order passed by the Courts below. Since the suit is neither under Section 91 CPC nor any leave for that purpose has been asked for or granted, no prejudice seems to have been caused to the defendants by permitting the plaintiffs to join the proceedings under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC. Dismissed. May 19, 2011 (M.M.S.BEDI) sanjay JUDGE