ORDER V. Ratnam, J. 1. The Court below was in error in declining to implead the petitioners as plaintiffs in Original Suit No. 10 of 1906 of District Court, Chengalpattu. Originally the suit had been instituted in a representative capacity on behalf of Thengalais against Vadagalais restraining Vadagalais from reciting Thengalai Tamil Prabandhams and manthiram during the pooja period and the matter went up to Privy Council and an injunction decree was granted. It is not in dispute that the plaintiffs, who instituted the suit in Original Suit No. 30 of 1906, in a representative capacity, are not alive. Complaining of some violation of the decree for injunction, the petitioners wanted that they should be impleaded and permitted to take appropriate action decree. The Executive Trustee, who was actually holding the office at the time of the alleged violation of injunction decree. Though the Executive Trustee, who was actually holding the office at the time of the alleged violation of the injunction decree, is no longer there and in that sense, the initiation of the contempt proceedings may not be of any avail, it is seen that at least in future, in order to protect the rights of the petitioners and work out their rights under the decree in Original Suit No. 10 of 1906, it would be necessary to implead the petitioners, as parties, as otherwise the benefit of the decree cannot be worked out and violations cannot also be checked. 2. It will be useful in this connection to refer to the decision in Swaminatha Mudaliar v. Kumara-swami Chettiar, 44 M.L.J.292 : 17 L.W.422, where it is pointed out that though it is unusual to bring fresh plaintiffs on record after a decree has been passed, yet in a representative suit, (like the one in Original Suit No. 10 of 1906), all the members of the class are in effect parties and any of them is entitled to bring himself on record as actual par ties. It has also to be borne in mind that under Order 1, Rule 8(6) of the Code of Civil Procedure, a decree passed in a suit is binding on all persons on whose behalf or for whose benefit, the suit is instituted or defended, as the case may be. It has also to be borne in mind that under Order 1, Rule 8(6) of the Code of Civil Procedure, a decree passed in a suit is binding on all persons on whose behalf or for whose benefit, the suit is instituted or defended, as the case may be. In that context, the petitioners can certainly claim that they are entitled to the benefit of the decree and they are also entitled to complain about violation thereof and at least to take that benefit and to see that the decree is obeyed, their presence would be necessary as parties to the suit. Consequently, the order of the Court below in dismissing E.A.No. 174 of 1980 is set aside and the petitioners will be impleaded as plaintiffs 11 to 13 in Original Suit No. 10 of 1906. The Civil Revision Petition is allowed accordingly. There will be no order as to costs.