Judgment R.H. Zaidi, J. (1) Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner, learned standing Counsel and also perused the record. (2) By means of this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, petitioner challenges validity of order dated 11.10.1999 passed by the Court below dismissing the revision filed by the petitioner and the order dated 2.9.1999 as well as order dated 13.9.1999. It appears that Respondents No. 2 and 3 filed Original Suit No. 672 of 1998 under Order I, Rule 8, C.P.C. in the Court of Civil Judge (Senior Division) Bulandshahr. The said suit was decreed by the trial Court and the said decree was affirmed upto the stage of Supreme Court. The same has be come final. Respondents Nos. 2 and 3 there after put the decree passed in the said suit in execution. The petitioner who was impleaded as opposite party in the said suit, filed objection that he was not party to the aforesaid suit or subsequent proceedings, therefore, decree passed in said suit was not binding upon him. The objection filed by the petitioner was rejected by the trial Court, thereupon a revision was filed against the said order which also met the same fate and was dismissed by the District Judge, hence the present petition. (3) Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Courts below have acted illegally in holding that the decree passed in O.S. No. 672 of 1998 was binding upon the petitioner, therefore, the judgment and orders passed by the Courts below are liable to be set aside. (4) It is not disputed that Suit No. 672 of 1998 was filed under Order I, Rule 8 C.P.C. It is well settled in law that to such a suit Explanation VI to Section 11, C.P.C. applies and a decree passed in such a suit ensures to the benefit of, or binds, all the persons so represented in the suit, although they are not actually parties on the record. Sub-rule (6) of Rule 8 of Order I, C.P.C. enacts that a decree passed in a suit under the said Rule shall be binding on all persons on whose behalf or whose benefit the suit is instituted or defended, as the case may be. A reference in this regard may be made to the decision of the apex court in AIR 1964 SC 107 . A reference in this regard may be made to the decision of the apex court in AIR 1964 SC 107 . After perusing the material on the record, the Court below held as under:- "It is clear from the perusal of judgment and order that a suit under Order I, Rule 8 was filed by firm Ashok Prakashan O.P. decree-holder against Prakashak Gurudev Computers and others and the suit was decreed by the learned lower Court and the decree was maintained upto the Hon'ble High Court. The judgment passed under Order I, Rule 8, C.P.C. is judgment in remand not in persona and everybody, who is intending to violate the injunction order will be bound by the decree and he will be punished for disobedience of the order. The order of the learned J.S.C.C. appears to be valid, proper and legal. The Revision is, therefore, dismissed summarily." (5) I do not find any illegality or infirmity in the impugned judgment and order passed by the Court below. No case for interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is made out. Writ petition fails and is dismissed in limine. Petition dismissed.