1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.3960 OF 2009 Sambhaji Tatoba Deshmukh & Ors. .. Petitioners versus Grampanchayat, Farnewadi & Ors. .. Respondents Mr.Vaibhav Gaikwad h/f Mr.A.M.Kulkarni, Mr.S.N.Patil, A.G.P for the respondent Nos.2 and 3. CORAM : A.S.OKA, J. DATE : 2nd September 2009. ORAL JUDGMENT: . Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and learned A.G.P for 2nd and 3rd respondents. The petitioners have filed a civil suit claiming declaration of ownership in respect of the suit property. The petitioners made an application under Rule 8 of Order I of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. On the said application, the learned trial Judge granted leave to the petitioners under Rule 8 of Order I of the said Code. The Court directed that suit summons/notice be served to 102 persons listed in Exhibit B to the plaint. An application for review/modification of the said order was made praying that service to said 102 persons be permitted to be made by publication in newspaper. The learned trial Judge rejected the said application by passing the impugned order. The challenge in this writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is to both the the said orders. 2 2. The submission of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners is that the very object of grant of leave under Rule 8 of Order I of the said Code has been frustrated by direction to personally serve summons to all 102 persons named in the schedule. He invited my attention to sub-rule 2 of Rule 8 of Order I of the said Code. I have also heard the learned A.G.P on this aspect. 3. As stated earlier, permission is already granted by the trial Court under sub-rule 1 of Rule 8 of Order I of the said Code. The sub-rule 2 of Rule 8 provides that notice of institution of the suit to all interested persons shall be given at the expense of the plaintiff. The sub-rule 2 provides that a notice will be served by personal service, or, where, by reason of the number of persons, or for any other cause, such service is not reasonably practicable, by public advertisement as the Court may direct. 4. In this case if personal service is to be effected, the same will have to be to all 102 persons. Personal service to all 102 persons is not at all reasonably practicable and therefore the trial Court ought to have permitted service of notice by public advertisement. 5. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners has tendered affidavit of the 4th petitioner. In the said affidavit it is stated that daily 3 newspapers “Tarun Bharat” and “Nav Sandesh” have vide circulation in the area concerned in which suit property is situated. The petitioners have shown readiness to publish notice/summons in the said newspapers. 6. If petitioners are compelled to serve personal notice to 102 persons, the very object of invoking Rule 8 of Order I of the said Code will be frustrated. Hence, impugned orders will have to be modified and service by advertisement will have to be permitted. 7. Hence, I pass the following order: : O R D E R : (a) The impugned orders are modified. (b) The petitioners are permitted to serve notice to all 102 persons specified in the schedule to the plaint by publishing a public notice in daily Tarun Bharat as well as daily Nav Sandesh. The publication will be at the cost of the petitioner. (c) Petition is disposed of in above terms. (A.S.OKA,J)