V. B. RAJU, J. ( 1 ) IN a representative suit Filed under Order 1 Rule 8 of the Civil Procedure Code in 1961 two persons namely Kasambhai and Hyderkhan gave an application Ex. 127 under sub-rule (2) of Order 1 Rule 8 C. P. Code stating that they want to be added as parties. At that time they were not added as plaintiffs. Subsequently these two persons and two other persons who made application (Ex. 131) were ordered to be substituted as plaintiffs in place of the original plaintiffs. That order is now challenged in revision. ( 2 ) SUB-RULE (2) of Order 1 Rule 8 G. P Code provides. (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. Therefore the two persons who gave the application (Ex. 127) had a right to be made parties to the suit. They should be added but not substituted for others ( 3 ) SUB-RULE (2) of Order 1 Rule 10 C. P. Code reads as under :-10 (2) The Court may at any state of the proceedings either upon or without the application of either party and on such terms as may appear to the Court to be just order that the name of any party improperly joined whether as plaintiff or defendant be struck out. and that the name of any person who ought to have been joined whether as plaintiff or defendant or whose presence before the Court may be necessary in order to enable the Court effectually and completely to adjudicate upon and settle all the questions involved in the suit be added. This is not a case of the original plaintiff being improperly joined. This is also not a case where the applicants of the application Ex 131 have sought to be made parties whose presence before the Court is necessary in order to enable the Court effectually and completely to adjudicate upon and settle all the questions involved in the suit. The suit is a representative one and the necessary notice had been given under Order 1 Rule 8 C. P. Code. The suit is a representative one and the necessary notice had been given under Order 1 Rule 8 C. P. Code. Subsequently at a very late stage two other persons cannot make an application and contend that their presence is necessary before the Court in order to enable the Court effectually and completely to adjudicate upon and settle all the questions involved in the suit. Therefore the lower Court was right in allowing the applicants of Ex. 127 to be added as parties. But the lower Court was wrong in ordering the applicants of the application Ex. 131 to be added as parties. The lower Court was also wrong in ordering that these persons be substituted as plaintiffs Nos. 1 to 4 in place of the original plaintiffs who have a right to continue as plaintiffs. ( 4 ) THEREFORE the order passed by the lower Court is set aside and the following order is passed:- in addition to the original plaintiff the applicants of the application Ex. 127 should be added as plaintiffs. ( 5 ) THE advocates of both the Sides state the compromise should be set aside. But the compromise is an act of the parties not an act of the Court. It cannot therefore be set aside. But as two of the plaintiffs namely the applicants of the application Ex. 127 are not parties to the compromise it will have no value. If the compromise has been recorded by the Court as a compromise of the parties to the suit the act of recording will be set aside. The Court will have to ignore the compromise as two of the plaintiffs are not the parties to the compromise. Order set aside. .