Judgment : This revision is directed against the order of District Munsif, Sattankulam in I.A.No.87 of 2002 in O.S.No.33 of 2001 (dated 18.4.2002) allowing the Application underO.1 , Rule 8, C.P.C., permitting first respondent/plaintiff to continue the suit in Representative capacity for and on behalf of Kalunguvilai CMS Sudhanga Suvisesha Sabai. 2. The revision arises on the following facts: Plaintiff is the President of Kalunguvilai CMS Suthanga Suvisesha Sabai (for short hereinafter referred to as “plaintiff Sabai”. Plaintiff is authorised to act on behalf of the plaintiff Sabai. Plaintiff Sabai was constituted for the purpose of imparting education for minority people and establishing schools. Plaintiff Sabai has established Evangelical Primary School at Kalunguvilai. First defendant was appointed as Correspondent of the said School by Plaintiff Sabai. As per Bye-laws of the Sabai, the Correspondent is entitled to appoint or promote anyone with approval of Sabai for proper administration of the School. 3. Any appointment made by the Correspondent is to be approved by the Executive Committee of the Sabai. One Natarajan was working as Headmaster of the school from 1.1.1997. While so, without obtaining any approval from the Executive Committee of the Plaintiff Sabai, D-1 has appointed D-2 - Koilpitchai Yesuvadian as the Headmaster of the said School by the order dated 26.2.2001. D-1 has absolutely no right to appoint D-2 as the Headmaster of the School without obtaining necessary approval from the Executive Committee. The action of D-1 is illegal and arbitrary. Plaintiff-President of the Sabai has issued registered notice on 20.2.2001 calling upon D-1 to withdraw the Order of Appointment and not to take any further action, without giving necessary approval from the Executive Committee of the Plaintiff Sabai. Notice was also sent to D-3 -Assistant Educational Officer at Sattankulam. Since the action of D-1 in appointing D-2 as Headmaster of CMS Evangelical Primary School is illegal and void, Plaintiff has filed the suit for declaring the Order of Appointment of D-2 as the Headmaster of the School as illegal and void and also for Permanent Injunction restraining D-1 from proceeding any further. 4. Defendants 1 and 2 have filed common written statement contending that CMS Evangelical Primary School is a Minority Institution as declared in O.S.No.4533 of 1997 on the file of City Civil Court, Madras. The said School is established and managed by the Christians of Kalunguvilai. 4. Defendants 1 and 2 have filed common written statement contending that CMS Evangelical Primary School is a Minority Institution as declared in O.S.No.4533 of 1997 on the file of City Civil Court, Madras. The said School is established and managed by the Christians of Kalunguvilai. The Middle School was upgraded as High School in the year 1994, which was approved by the Educational Department. CMS Evangelical Primary School is an Aided School with four teachers working, viz., D-2-Koilpitchai Yesuvadian, Y.Prema, K.Natarajan and one Premalatha. D-2 joined duty on 9.6.1969 and is the Senior Most among the teachers. D-2 is a qualified M.A., M.Ed., having experience of 31 years. The teacher namely, K.Natarajan, who is working from 1.3.1987 was promoted as Headmaster of the School from 1.1.1997 by the previous Management and Correspondent namely, D.Solomon. The Education Department did not approve the promotion of Natarajan. Further, the Education Department also asked D-1, who is the present Correspondent, to promote the qualified Senior Most Teacher as the Headmaster of the said school. The Senior most hand, viz., D-2 applied to D-1 on 15.2.2001 to promote him as the Headmaster of the School and D2 was promoted as Headmaster on 26.2.2001. The said Natarajan also handed over charges to D-2 on 1.3.2001. Order passed by D-1 on 26.2.2001 upgrading D-2 as the Headmaster of the school is valid and is in accordance with the Rules and Proceedings of Tamil Nadu Primary Education Department. Absolutely, there is no irregularity in upgrading D-2 as the Headmaster of the School and the suit filed by the plaintiff is without valid cause and is unsustainable. 5. While the Suit is pending, Plaintiff Rajaiah Nadar had filed I.A.No.87 of 2002 underO.1 , Rule 8, C.P.C., seeking the permission of the Court to sue the Defendants in the Representative capacity for himself and on behalf of Kalunguvilai CMS Sudhanga Suvisesha Sabai People. According to the first respondent/plaintiff, filing and conducting of the Suit in his individual capacity as the President of the Sabai affects the interest of the Sabai people and hence, the same is to be continued by amending the Suit as one for Representative capacity. 6. TheApplication was strongly resisted by defendants 1 and 2 contending that the Suit instituted in the individual capacity of the plaintiff cannot be amended as a Representative Suit. 7. 6. TheApplication was strongly resisted by defendants 1 and 2 contending that the Suit instituted in the individual capacity of the plaintiff cannot be amended as a Representative Suit. 7. Upon consideration of the rival contentions, the learned District Munsif allowed the Application granting permission to the revision petitioner/plaintiff to continue the suit for Sabai people. 8. Contention of defendants 1 and 2 that the proposed amendment and granting permission to sue in Representative capacity would alter the fundamental character of the Suit was rejected by the trial Court, finding that such amendment would not materially change the nature of the suit. 9. Aggrieved over the allowing of the Application filed underO.1 , Rule 8, C.P.C., revision retitioners/defendants 1 and 2 have preferred this revision. Earlier, as against the proposed amendment in Application No.204 of 2002, defendants 1 and 2 have preferred C.R.P.No.1723 of 2002. A.Ramamurthi, J., dismissed the revision finding that the proposed amendment on the presumptive footing of suit being sued in a representative capacity would fundamentally alter the character of the suit and without satisfying the requirements contemplated underO.1 , Rule 8, C.P.C., holding that the amendment changing the suit to a Representative capacity cannot be allowed. Laying emphasis upon the findings of A.Ramamurthy, J., the learned counsel appearing for revision petitioners/D-1 and D-2 submitted that when the earlier revision C.R.P.No.1723 of 2002 was dismissed, the plaintiff cannot be allowed to continue the suit in representative capacity. It is further submitted that having filed the suit in individual capacity, the same cannot be permitted to be changed as being one representative capacity. The learned counsel for the revision petitioners placed reliance upon Sekar Mudaliar v. Shayati Bi (1987)1 MLJ. 248 : 100 L.W. 240. 10. In the light of amendment of Sec.115, C.P.C., seriously assailing the maintainability of the revision, the learned counsel appearing for the first respondent/plaintiff has submitted that when the plaintiff has sought for amendment only regarding the cause title, it would not in any way alter the character of the suit. 248 : 100 L.W. 240. 10. In the light of amendment of Sec.115, C.P.C., seriously assailing the maintainability of the revision, the learned counsel appearing for the first respondent/plaintiff has submitted that when the plaintiff has sought for amendment only regarding the cause title, it would not in any way alter the character of the suit. Contending that there is no change in the plaint averments excepting the cause title and that the Courts are to be liberal in allowing such Applications, the learned counsel for the first respondent/plaintiff relied upon The Victoria Edward Hall represented by its Secretary, Dr.I.Ismail v. M.Samraj The Victoria Edward Hall represented by its Secretary, Dr.I.Ismail v. M.Samraj The Victoria Edward Hall represented by its Secretary, Dr.I.Ismail v. M.Samraj (2001)3 MLJ. 39 : (2001)3 C.T.C. 129 in support of his contention that the leave to sue in a representative capacity could be made even at the appellate stage even if the Suit was originally filed in individual capacity. 11. The learned Additional Government Pleader (Civil Side) appearing for the respondents 2 to 4 submitted that by granting permission to the plaintiff to continue the suit as representative capacity would introduce a new cause of action changing the prospective of the suit. The learned Additional Government Pleader has further submitted that the impugned Order under Revision suffers from serious Jurisdictional error, which cannot be sustained. 12. Upon consideration of the submissions by the counsel and available materials, the only point that arises for consideration is whether the trial Court was right in permitting the plaintiff to covert the suit as the one filed under representative capacity underO.1 , Rule 8, C.P.C. 13. Admittedly, plaintiff filed the Suit O.S.No.33 of 2001 in his capacity as President of the Sabai. His status to continue as the President of the Sabai is subject to the Bye-laws of the Sabai. If the Plaintiff is removed from the post of President of the Sabai, the Suit becomes infructuous. It may be pointed out that the plaintiff cannot perpetually continue to function as the President of the Plaintiff Sabai. Perhaps only foreseeing any such removal from Presidentship, Plaintiff seems to have filed I.A.No.87 of 2002 seeking leave to sue to continue the Suit in the Representative capacity. It may be pointed out that the plaintiff cannot perpetually continue to function as the President of the Plaintiff Sabai. Perhaps only foreseeing any such removal from Presidentship, Plaintiff seems to have filed I.A.No.87 of 2002 seeking leave to sue to continue the Suit in the Representative capacity. It is pertinent to note that in the written statement, defendants 1 and 2 have clearly averred that there are totally eight Executive Members including the plaintiff. Out of the eight Executive Members, only three Members, viz., the plaintiff, one Pitchaimuthu Nadar and Deva Pitchai are alone said to be against D-1. While the majority of the Executive Members of the Plaintiff Sabai are with the first Defendant, continuance of the Plaintiff as the President of the Sabai is at stake. In that circumstance, the question arises as to whether permission is to be granted to the plaintiff to sue in the representative capacity. 14. The suit was earlier filed in the individual capacity of the Plaintiff as President of the Sabai. Amending the suit cause title as the Representative Suit would fundamentally alter the nature of the Suit.O.1 , Rule 8, C.P.C., is the enabling provision to bring the suit in a representative capacity on behalf of all persons, who are having same/common interest and the grievance. Conditions necessary to bring a suit within the Rule are- • (i) numerous parties; • (ii) same interest; • (iii) permission of Court; • (iv) notice of Suit. Conditions of a suit under Rule 8 and its effect. On such permission being given it becomes the imperative duty of the Court to direct notice to be given to the absent parties in such of the ways prescribed as the Court in each case may require; while liberty is reserved to any represented person to apply to be made to a party to the suit. 15. For fulfilling the above conditions, first of all plaintiff must establish that he had obtained the sanction of the Sabai people.... on whose behalf the Plaintiff has proposed to institute/ continue the suit as the Representative Suit. Absolutely, no such averments are forthcoming either in the plaint or in the Affidavit. In the Affidavit, accompanying the Petition filed underO.1 , Rule 8, C.P.C. Plaintiff has vaguely averred The above averments are vague and uncertain to grant leave to the plaintiff to continue the suit in a representative capacity. 16. Absolutely, no such averments are forthcoming either in the plaint or in the Affidavit. In the Affidavit, accompanying the Petition filed underO.1 , Rule 8, C.P.C. Plaintiff has vaguely averred The above averments are vague and uncertain to grant leave to the plaintiff to continue the suit in a representative capacity. 16. Suits underO.1 , Rule 8 are allowed, where there are numerous parties, who are having common interest and grievance. Generally alleging that the Sabhai people, who are having the common interest and that their interest are affected by the functioning of D-1 is not sufficient. As noted earlier, in the written statement filed by D-1 and D-2, clear averments are made that the senior most Teacher is D-2, and Natarajan is far junior to him. The appointment of Natarajan by the erstwhile Management and Correspondent D.Solomon was not approved by the Education Department. As per the instructions of the Education Department, keeping the seniority, D-1 being the Correspondent happened to appoint D-2 as the Headmaster. Absolutely there is no averments in the plaint as to how this Order of Appointment of D-2 as the Headmaster has affected the general interest of the community/Sabai People. 17. As held by A.Ramamurthi, J., while disposing C.R.P.No.1723 of 2002, the essential requirement ofO.1 , Rule 8, C.P.C., is the Public Notice through Tom Tom and by issuance of paper publication and by other modes. Those initial requirements are to be satisfied for obtaining prior permission of the Court for suing in representative capacity. Issuance of Notice by advertisement and Tom Tom is imperative. All these mandatory requirements cannot be allowed to be waived by subsequently allowing the Application to continue the Suit in Representative capacity. Even when the earlier C.R.P. preferred against the order of dismissal of the Amendment Application was dismissed, certainly this revision also has no merits. 18. The learned District Munsif has not kept in view any of the requirements ofO.1 , Rule 8, C.P.C. If permission is granted to the plaintiff to sue in representative capacity, the fundamental character of the suit would be changed and the plaint is to be necessarily amended. This has been lightly brushed aside by the learned District Munsif. Neither the essential prerequisite ofO.1 , Rule 8, C.P.C., nor the fundamental alteration of the character of the suit was taken note of by the trial Court. This has been lightly brushed aside by the learned District Munsif. Neither the essential prerequisite ofO.1 , Rule 8, C.P.C., nor the fundamental alteration of the character of the suit was taken note of by the trial Court. Leave to sue in representative capacity ought not to have been granted merely by saying that the interest of justice requires. The learned District Munsif has not demonstrably shown how the order of appointment of D-2 in the place of Natarajan affects the general interest of the Community People of the Sabai. 19. Contending that the leave to sue in a Representative capacity could be made even at appellate stage, the learned counsel for the first respondent/plaintiff relied upon the judgment of P.Thangavel, J., reported in The Victoria Edward Hall represented by its Secretary, Dr.I.Ismail v. M.Samraj The Victoria Edward Hall represented by its Secretary, Dr.I.Ismail v. M.Samraj The Victoria Edward Hall represented by its Secretary, Dr.I.Ismail v. M.Samraj (2001)3 MLJ. 39 : (2001)3 C.T.C. 129 . In the said case, the Application for leave of the Court underO.1 , Rule 8, C.P.C., was ordered to be allowed in the appellate stage; but that was a case arising where the Membership of the Members was directly in dispute. Considering the fact that the Membership is in dispute, which is a very much essential for holding of election of Society, permission was granted to the plaintiff to file the Suit in a Representative capacity. The case in hand factually stands on a different footing. Neither the sanction of the Sabai People nor the essential pre-requisites ofO.1 , Rule 8 are satisfied either on facts or on averments in the pleadings. The views of the learned Judge in the above decision cannot be adopted in the case in hand. 20. This revision petition was filed challenging the impugned order dated 18.4.2002. The learned counsel for the first respondent seriously assails the maintainability of the revision in view of Sec.115, C.P.C., as per the Amended Act 46 of 1999 which came into force with effect from 1.7.2002. It is submitted that the Revisional Jurisdiction of the High Court under Sec.115 is substantially curtailed and that in view of amendment to Sec.115, High Court cannot vary or modify the order of the trial Court. It is submitted that the Revisional Jurisdiction of the High Court under Sec.115 is substantially curtailed and that in view of amendment to Sec.115, High Court cannot vary or modify the order of the trial Court. This contention does not merit appearance for two reasons- firstly, the impugned order now challenged is prior to the Amendment, i.e., dated 18.4.2002. secondly - No doubt, Sec.115 as amended by Act 46 of 1999 does not permit revision petition being filed against the order of trial Court confirming, reversing or modifying the order granted by the trial Court since such order would not have the effect of finally disposing the suit or proceeding. In Surya Dev Rai v. Ram Chander Rai (2003)3 MLJ. 60 (S.C.): (2003)4 C.T.C. 48, after elaborately discussing the effect of the amendment upon the Supervisory Jurisdiction of the High Court, the Supreme Court has held that where the error is self evident and patent, which need to be corrected in the initial stages, the High Court could certainly exercise its Supervisory Jurisdiction to interfere. As discussed earlier, the facts and circumstances of this case clearly show error in changing the suit filed in the individual capacity as that of the representative capacity, which need to be corrected, or otherwise the effect of error would be serious. Hence, the contention advanced on the maintainability of the revision in view of Amended Provisions under Sec.115 has no merits. 21. The impugned order granting permission to sue/to continue the suit in a representative capacity cannot be ordered. The order amounts to erroneous exercise of jurisdiction, conscious disregard of the procedure to be followed underO.1 , Rule 8, C.P.C. Hence, the impugned order is to be sets aside and this revision is to be allowed.