IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Revision No.560 of 2009 1.Md. Kalam, son of Md. Nasir, resident of Village Pokharbhinda, P.S. Sakatpur, District-Darbhanga, Up- Mukhiya of Pokharbhinda Gram Pandhayat. 2. Parmeshwar Mahto, son of late Dogai Mahto, resident of Village-Pokharbhinda, P.S. Sakatpur, District-Darbhanga, Up-Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat, Raj, Pokharbhinda --- Intervener-objectors --- Petitioners. Versus 1. Binod Kumar Mishra, son of Jai Narain Mishra 2. Radha Kant Mishra, son of Dev Narayan Mishra, both residents of Village Pokharbhinda, P.O. and P.S. Sakatpur, District-Darbhanga --- Plaintiffs ---Opposite Party Ist 3. Pratham Narain Mishra alias Pratham Narain Jha, son of late Subhadra Mishra 4. Uday Chandra Mishra 5. Prem Chandra Mishra 6. Sunil Mishra 7. Sanjay Mishra, all sons of Pratham Narain Mishra alias Pratham Narain Jha 8. Madan Thakur, son of late Uma Thakur.all residents of Village Pokharbhinda, P.O. and P.S. Sakatpur, District- Darbhanga --- Defendants Ist Parties --- Opposite 2nd parties. 9. Sabhapati Mishra, son of Mohit Mishra 10. Gopalji Mishra, son of Sadanand Mishra 11. Anil Mishra, son of Upendra Mishra deceased 12. Digambar Mishra, son of late Bhola Mishra 13. Harey Ram Mishra, son of Jagdish Mishra 14. Kamal Mishra, son of Uttim Lal Mishra, all residents of Village Pokharbhinda, P.O. and P.S. Sakatpur, District- Darbhanga --- Defendants 2nd party --- Opposite 3rd Parties --- Opposite Parties. ---------------------------------- 6. 25.11.2011 Heard Mr. Shiv Kumar Sinha for the petitioners, and Mr. Devendra Kumar Sinha for opposite party nos. 1 and 2 (the plaintiffs). The present civil revision application 2 under section 115 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been preferred by the members of the general public of the area in question for dismissal of Title Suit No.25 of 2007, which has been rejected by the order dated 6.1.2009, passed by the learned Munsif, Darbhanga. We have perused the materials on record and considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties. Opposite party nos. 1 and 2 have instituted the aforesaid suit in representative capacity for certain declaration. The present petitioners are residents of that area, and filed an application before the learned trial court for dismissal of the suit which, in their submission, is really not a suit in representative capacity, is a suit for personal gains, and is beyond the ambit of Order 1, Rule 8 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The same has been rejected by the impugned order on the ground that the requisite steps in terms of Order 1, Rule 8 of the Code of Civil Procedure have already been taken and Gazette publication has been made. It may be stated that identical application by defendant nos. 4 and 6 have also been rejected by order dated 11.12.2007, and noticed in the impugned order. We do not wish to go into validity or otherwise of the steps 3 taken under Order1, Rule 8 of the Code of Civil Procedure. We wish to dispose of this civil revision application with the direction that the petitioners herein may be impleaded as defendants who shall be entitled to raise objections in accordance with law. However, we do not wish to interfere with the impugned order in so far as the limited purpose of disposal of the present civil revision application is concerned. We do not wish to interfere with the impugned order. This civil revision application is disposed of with the aforesaid observations. Vinay/ ( S. K. Katriar, J.)