JUDGMENT : S.C. Mohapatra, J. - Applicants seeking to be added as defendants in a suit under Order 1, Rule 8 CPC, have filed this revision u/s 115; CPC against the order refusing such application 2. Claiming part of the land on which village Hangura is situated plaintiff filed a suit for permanent injunction against the villagers after obtaining permission under Order 1, Rule 8, CPC. Some of the villagers were made defendants to represent the village. On basis of "notice published under Order 1, Rule 8 CPC, petitioners filed application for being added as parties. Application was filed or 30-10-1989, the date fixed in the notice. 3. Plaintiff objected to the application on the ground that appli- cants have not explained how their interest would be affected if they are not made parties. 4. Relying on the decision of this Court reported in ILR (1979) Cut 174 : (Chintamani Mahasuar and Ors. v. Kasinath Mahasuar and Ors.) trial Court held that applicants not having been able to explain how their interest would be affected, rejected the prayer in the impugned order 5. Object of Order 1, Rule 8 CPC, is to avoid large number of parties being added as parties. Normally each person against whom relief is sought is to be added as party so that he gets opportunity to contest the relief sought before being bound by the decree. To avoid this normal rule, plaintiff is given the liberty to select one or a few to represent others. This is not automatic. He is to seek permission from the Court. At the time of granting permission, those against whom relief is sought are not heard. In this view, duty is cast on Court to closely scrutinise the application for permission with assertion in the plaint to be satisfied that the persons selected to represent other persons having common interest have valid authority for the same. If this is not followed by the Court, there is every chance of a collusive suit being filed. In the present condition of society, where village party faction, sectorism, different poltical Ideology dividing villagers affecting law and order, Courts' duty becomes heavy. 6. In this case defendants selected by plaintiff to represent the villagers are merely described as leaders of the village. There Is no description as to how they are leaders. Court has not effectively considered the question while granting permission. 6. In this case defendants selected by plaintiff to represent the villagers are merely described as leaders of the village. There Is no description as to how they are leaders. Court has not effectively considered the question while granting permission. Parliament has taken note of change of ideology of representatives of people and legislated prohibiting change of ideology and provided for consequences of such change and exceptions. When Parliament has taken note of such a position even in case of representatives of people, so-called leaders in villages who are not bound by any statutory obligation ought not to be permitted to be properly selected by plaintiff to represent the villagers. Question of Sarpanch or other persons who have been elected by villagers and on whom majority have confidence stands on a different footing. Therefore, in a suit against the villagers, more care .should be taken by Court. What would be the standard of care would vary from the nature of the group of persons having common interest of whom a few are selected. 7. When notice under Order 1, Rule 8(2) CPC is issued and a date is fixed for giving opportunity to apply to be added as defendant, time for the selected persons added as defendants to file written statement has not reached it is not possible for others whose interest they represent to know what defence they would take. No duty under law is cast on the selected defendants to approach others who are sought to be bound by the decree to take their view to reflect the same in the written statement. Therefore, at that stage, those who apply to be added as defendants would not be in a position to state how the selected persons would not be able to protect interest of others having common interest with them. When a date is fixed, a person is to make an application failing which entertainment of such application later would be in discretion of the Court. If a person does not take the said risk, he is not to be penalised. 8. ILR (1979) 1 Cut 174 (supra) is a case where application was filed long after expiry of the date fixed in the notice. It was not a case of relief against villagers, Accordingly, principle laid down in the said decision cannot have universal application having general application. 8. ILR (1979) 1 Cut 174 (supra) is a case where application was filed long after expiry of the date fixed in the notice. It was not a case of relief against villagers, Accordingly, principle laid down in the said decision cannot have universal application having general application. In the- circumstances of that case when the disposal of the suit was going to be delayed by such application, this Court rightly called for a rigid test, Present circumstances are different. Applicants came immediately on the date fixed on the notice and applied to be added as defendants. Plaint in respect of their interest is subject matter of suit. Persons selected as defendants were only described as leaders. When applicants do not accept those persons as leaders, apprehension that their interest may not be properly protected cannot be said to be unreasonable. Accordingly, I am inclined to hold that application is to be allowed. 9. In the result, Civil Revision is allowed. No costs. Final Result : Allowed