JUDGMENT S. K. Dhaon, J. - This petition, at the instance of the Aligarh Muslim University, Aligarh (hereinafter referred to as the University) and its Vice-Chancellor, who are defendants in a Suit which is pending before the Court of Munsif Koil, Aligarh, is directed against the order dated 18th March, 1987, passed by the 1st Additional District Judge, Aligarh dismissing their revision application and upholding the order of the trial court directing the impleadment of Dr. Prem Kumar Srivastava, respondent No. 4 (hereinafter referred to as Dr. Srivastava) as one of the plaintiffs in the suit. 2. In the suit four defendants were arrayed. The first two are the two petitioners before this Court. The defendant No. 3 was the dean. Faculty of Social Science, Aligarh Muslim University and the defendant No. 4 Dr. Hashim Qidwai, was a member of the Executive Council of the University. The defendants No. 3 and 4 in the suit are arrayed as respondents No. 5 and 6 to this Petition. Apparently, they have been impleaded as proforma respondents to the Writ Petition. 3. The court on 18th May, 1987 directed the petitioners to serve respondent No. 3 Smt. Nikhat Feroz the original plaintiff in the suit (hereinafter referred to as the Plaintiff) and Dr. Srivastava, outside Court and file an affidavit of service. Notices were directed to be issued to respondents 3 and 4 by registered post acknowledgement due as well. It was also indicated that the notices shall indicate that the petition will be listed for admission along with the application for interim relief on 9th July, 1987. An affidavit of service has been filed in the office, by one Sri Ahmad Khan as Assistant in the Accounts Section of the University. The learned counsel has produced a copy of the affidavit before this Court. A perusal of the same indicates that Smt. Nikhat Feroz received the notice on 26th May, 1987 and Dr. Srivastava received the notice on 2nd June, 1987. Presumably, the notice sent under Registered Post acknowledgement to the aforesaid respondent have been duly served. The said respondent have not put in appearance before this Court. Under the circumstances, the said respondents shall be deemed to be duly served with notices. I am therefore, proceeding to dispose of this petition finally on the footing that the averments made in the writ petition are correct. The said respondent have not put in appearance before this Court. Under the circumstances, the said respondents shall be deemed to be duly served with notices. I am therefore, proceeding to dispose of this petition finally on the footing that the averments made in the writ petition are correct. 4 The plaintiff sought and appointment to the post of a Lecturer in Sociology in the University. The selection committee considered the applications on 5th of January, 1986. It did not recommend the plaintiff for appointment. The Executive Council of the University in its meeting held on 16th March, 1985 approved recommendations made by the Selection Committee not only with regard to the appointment of Lecturers in Sociology but also with respect to certain other appointments. According to the plaintiff the Executive Council disposed of II matters in its meeting held on 16th March, 1985. 5. Relief as claimed in the suit is relevant to this writ petition and is Quoted in extends - "(a) That the meeting of the Executive Council held on 16-3-1985 approving the said appointments and other items be declared null and void, consequently decree for permanent prohibitory injunction restraining the defendants its agents and servants from giving effect to the recommendation of the Executive Council on the items approved on 16-3-1985, in any manner whatsoever." 6. The University filed a written statement. 7. An application was made by the plaintiff before the trial court praying that the suit may be treated to be a suit under Order i, Rule 8 of the Code and necessary orders for publication be made. This application, it appears, is marked Paper No. 19/C - 2. On 1st October, 1985, the said application came up for consideration before the trial court. It was allowed. The operative portion of the order, which is relevant, is as follows : "Since the interest of other persons is involved, hence, allowed. Steps be taken within seven days." 8. The University filed an objection against the said application under Order I, Rule 8 of the Code made by the plaintiff' Dr. Srivastava made an application for being impleaded as one of the plaintiffs in the suit. The University, by means of a written objection objected to the impleadment of Dr. Srivastava as one of the plaintiffs. On 18th September, 1986 the case was called out and none of the parties were present. Srivastava made an application for being impleaded as one of the plaintiffs in the suit. The University, by means of a written objection objected to the impleadment of Dr. Srivastava as one of the plaintiffs. On 18th September, 1986 the case was called out and none of the parties were present. The trial court disposed of the application 9/C - 2 in the following words :- "19/C - 2 is hereby disposed of as per order dated 1-10-1985." 9. The trial court noted that the plaintiff' was absent. It also noted that she had made an application for the withdrawal of the suit. The application made by Dr. Srivastava, 23/C - 2 was then considered. The operative portion of the order, which is relevant, ran thus i "In view of the order passed by the Court on 1-10-1985 the applicant Dr. Prem Kumar Srivastava is also person who comes in the purview of Order I, Rule 8(3). Hence, 23/C - 2 is allowed, accordingly." This order was impugned by the petitioners by means of a revision application which, as already stated, has been dismissed by the impugned order. 10. A perusal of the order of the trial court dated 18th September, 1986, whereby the application of Dr. Srivastava was allowed, as well as the impugned order of the revisional authority, indicates that both the courts felt that the application for the impleadment of Dr. Srivastava as plaintiffs in the suit had been rightly allowed as by its order dated 1st October, 1985 the trial court bad accepted the plea of the plaintiff that the suit should be treated to be one in a representative capacity. As already indicated, immediately after the order dated 1st October, 1985, the University preferred an objection against the application made by the plaintiff for treating the suit having been filed in a representative capacity and for its publication. A bare perusal of the order dated 1st October, 1985 clearly indicates that the same has been passed ex-parte and behind the back of the University. The trial Court was not justified in passing an ex-parte order and this aspect has been ignored by the revisional court. Once the order of 1st October, 1985 is held to be bad, the order passed by the trial court directing the impleadment of Dr. Srivastava as plaintiff in the suit will automatically fall. 11. The trial Court was not justified in passing an ex-parte order and this aspect has been ignored by the revisional court. Once the order of 1st October, 1985 is held to be bad, the order passed by the trial court directing the impleadment of Dr. Srivastava as plaintiff in the suit will automatically fall. 11. In fairness to both the parties the trial court should have considered the objections preferred by the University against paper No. 19/C - 2 on 18th September, 1986, instead of taking the view that the application had to be disposed of in accordance with the order dated 1st October, 1985. 12. The net result is that the order dated 18th September, 1986 directing the impleadment of Dr. Srivastava as one of the plaintiffs, cannot be sustained. It is accordingly quashed. As a natural corollary the impugned order of the revisional court dated 18th March. i987 is also quashed. The trial court shall dispose of the application (Paper No. 19/C - 2) after considering the objections of the University. If the trial court decides to treat the suit as one having been filed in a representative capacity, it shall dispose of the application of Dr. Srivastava for being impleaded as plaintiff in the suit, after considering the objection of the University. The Trial Court will also bear in mind that the plaintiff has already made an application for the withdrawal of the suit. 13. With these directions, this petitions disposed of finally. Since the respondents have not contested this petition there shall be no orders to costs. 14. A copy of this order may be issued to the learned counsel on payment of usual charges within a week.