JUDGMENT C.B. Agarwala, J. - This is an application in revision against an order dismissing an appeal, which order confirmed the order of the City Munsif of Saharanpur rejecting an application for setting aside a decree under Order 9, Rule 11, Code of Civil Procedure. 2. The facts briefly stated are these. Rahtumal and Lal Chand, opposite parties, filed a suit which has given rise to these proceedings against two persons, Riaz Ahmad and Mohammad Muqim. These Defendants were impleaded in their individual rights and also as representatives of the Muslim community of Saharanpur. In para. 5 of the plaint it was expressly stated that the number of Muslims in Saharanpur was exceedingly large and as they had started offering prayers at the place in dispute, the suit had been filed under Order 1 Rule 8 CPC against the Defendants as representatives of the Muslim community of Saharanpur. An application was also presented to the Munsif for permission to sue the Defendants in a representative capacity. This application was allowed and notice was published in a local newspaper called 'Peoples Journal'. Defendant No. 1 filed a written statement. Defendant No. 2 stated in Court that he had no concern with the property in dispute. No one other than the Defendants out of the Muslim public of Saharanpur applied for being impleaded in the suit. The suit was ultimately decreed on 18-9-1952 on the merits. On 17-11-1952 the applicant Noor Mohammad who was not a party named in the suit (sic)led an application before the Munsif under Order 9, Rule 13, CPC praying that the decree passed on 18-9-1952, may be set aside as it was an ex parte decree so far as he was concerned, he not being present on the final date of hearing. This application was dismissed by the learned Munsif. An appeal by the applicant in the lower appellate court was also unsuccessful. Both the courts below held that no such application lay as it could not be said in the circumstances that the suit had been decreed ex parte. 3. This application was dismissed by the learned Munsif. An appeal by the applicant in the lower appellate court was also unsuccessful. Both the courts below held that no such application lay as it could not be said in the circumstances that the suit had been decreed ex parte. 3. Learned Counsel for the applicant has urged that the applicant should have been deemed to be a party to the suit as proceedings under Order 1, Rule 8, CPC had been taken and that as such as he was absent, the decree must be deemed to be ex parte against him and that an application for setting aside the ex parte decree lay under Order 9, Rule 13, Code of Civil Procedure. 4. It appears to me that the contention of learned Counsel for the applicant cannot be supported in law. Order 1, Rule 8 lays down: (1) Where there are numerous persons having the same interest in one suit, one or more of such persons may, with the permission of the Court, sue or be sued, or may defend, in such suit, on behalf of or for the benefit of all persons so interested. But the Court shall in such case give, at the Plaintiff's expense, notice of the institution of the suit to all such persons either by personal service or, where from the number of persons or any other cause such service is not reasonably practicable, by public advertisement, as the Court in each case may direct. (2) Any person on whose behalf or for whose benefit a suit is instituted or defended under Sub-rule (1) may apply to the Court to be made a party to such suit. 5. In the present case the Plaintiff stated that there were numerous persons having the same interest in the suit and that permission may be granted to sue the Defendants on behalf of and for the benefit of all the persons so interested. Notice was issued as required by Rule 8 by means of public advertisement as directed by the Court. The effect of these proceedings was that the entire Muslim community of Saharanpur would be deemed to be represented in the suit through Defendants 1 and 2. Notice was issued as required by Rule 8 by means of public advertisement as directed by the Court. The effect of these proceedings was that the entire Muslim community of Saharanpur would be deemed to be represented in the suit through Defendants 1 and 2. Although the Muslim public of Saharanpur was the optically speaking party to the suit in the sense that they would be bound by the result of the suit, they could not be said to be parties named on the record as such. The parties arrayed in the suit were Defendants 1 and 2 and these were the representatives of the entire Muslim community of Saharanpur. Sub-rule (2) of Rule 8 clearly makes a distinction between persons on whose behalf or for whose benefit a suit is instituted and person who is actually a party to the sui(sic) The sub-rule provides that any person (sic) whose behalf the suit is instituted may ap(sic) to the Court to be made a party to(sic) suit. Unless a person is so brou(sic) on the record as a party to the suit, he has no right to take part in the proceedings of the suit, although he is bound by the result of the suit. The reason for this position is that such a party is represented in the suit through the persons named as parties to the suit, that is to say, is the present case by Defendants 1 and 2. when the representatives are on the record and are present and the suit is decided on the merits in their presence it cannot be said that the suit has been decided ex parte. It s true that parties other than the representatives were not personally present in Court when the suit was decided but if they were present through their representative they could not be deemed to be absent An application under Order 9 Rule 13, CPC lies-only where a decree is passed ex parte against a Defendant. In the present case the decrees was not passed ex parte against the Defendants. 6. In the present case the decrees was not passed ex parte against the Defendants. 6. It is no doubt true that a person on whose behalf or for whose benefit a suit is instituted or defended by the persons named in the suit may, in certain circumstances, be allowed even after the passing of the decree in the suit to come on the record and take further proceedings in the suit. For instance, where a decree is passed in favour of a community represented in a suit by say two persons and those two persons do not take necessary steps for the execution of the decree, any person belonging to the community for whose benefit oh on whose behalf the decree is passed may apply the Court for being permitted to execute the decree and the Court may permit such a person to be brought on the record as a decree-holder and to execute the decree as if he was one of the decree-holders vide Swaminath Mudaliar v. Kumaraswami Chettiar (sic) an Cases, 284. 7. Again, if a decree were passed ex parte against a community which was represented in a suit by two persons and none of those two persons apply for setting aside the decree, any member of the community may apply to the Court for being brought on the record and permitted to have the ex parte decree set aside, and the Court may allow this to be done in the interest of the community. But where the decree is not ex parte at all, such a procedure is not open to any member of the community. 8. If the contention urged on behalf of the (sic)ant were to be accepted, it would come (sic)hat every member of the public will right to have the decree set aside on (sic)that it was passed in his absence and on this manner the very object of Rule 8, Order 1, CPC will be frustrated. 9. There is no force in this application. It is dismissed with costs.