Judgment :- (Prayer: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, as stated therein.) Aggrieved over the Order of the Principal District Munsif Court, Madurai Town, made in I.A.No.941 of 1998 in O.S.No.2039 of 1990 dated 11.10.2002, impleading the respondents 1 to 4 as the Defendants to the Suit O.S.No.2039 of 1990, the Revision Petitioner has preferred this Revision. 2.The relevant facts which are necessary for the disposal of this Revision could briefly be stated thus: - The subject matter of the dispute relates to Shanthi Vidhyalaya Middle School at Pallarputhur, Vilangudi Town, Madurai. The School was started as Elementary School in the year 1961 and later on it was upgraded as Middle School. Originally one J.Eddy was the Manager and Correspondent of this School. He transferred the said School and Management in favour of the 5th Defendant Gurupatham. 3.O.S.No.1229 of 1986:- The 5th Defendant - Gurupatham had filed this Suit on the file of Principal District Munsif Court, Madurai for declaration that he is entitled to manage the School. During the pendency of the suit, the Plaintiffs herein filed Application I.A.No.213 of 1988 for impleading themselves as parties in O.S.No.1229/1986. That Application was dismissed by the District Munsif Court on 20.6.1988. 4.C.R.P.No.2281 of 1988:- Against the Order of dismissal of the Application in I.A.No.213 of 1988, the Plaintiffs herein have filed this Revision Before the High Court. By the Order dated 16.9.1988, the High Court has dismissed the Civil Revision Petition; but the High Court has directed that the Plaintiffs could be examined as Court Witnesses in the said Suit O.S.No.1229 of 1986. 5. C.R.P.No.3212 of 1988:- The suit O.S.No.1229 of 1986 was decreed by the Court on 12.10.1988. Alleging that they have not been permitted to file vakalat and examine themselves as Court Witnesses, the Plaintiffs have preferred C.R.P.3212 of 1988. Pointing out that the Plaintiffs have failed to avail the opportunities, pursuant to the Order of the Court in C.R.P.No.2281 of 1988, C.R.P.No.3212 of 1988 was dismissed by this Court on 4.9.1990. 6.The 1st Defendant-Chief Educational Officer, Madurai is said to have transferred the Management of School in favour of the 5th Defendant by the proceedings PA.MU.No.28037/A3/86 dated 22.01.1991. Pointing out that the Plaintiffs have failed to avail the opportunities, pursuant to the Order of the Court in C.R.P.No.2281 of 1988, C.R.P.No.3212 of 1988 was dismissed by this Court on 4.9.1990. 6.The 1st Defendant-Chief Educational Officer, Madurai is said to have transferred the Management of School in favour of the 5th Defendant by the proceedings PA.MU.No.28037/A3/86 dated 22.01.1991. Thereafter, challenging the Order of the Chief Educational Officer, recognising the 5th Defendant in managing the School, the Plaintiffs have filed O.S.No.2039 of 1990 on the file of Principal District Munsif Court, Madurai, for declaring the proceedings of the 1st Defendant-Chief Educational Officer, as null and void and declaring that the order of the 1st Defendant-Chief Educational Officer, transferring the Management of Shanthi Vidyalaya Middle School, in favour of the 5th Defendant as invalid, null and void and also for permanent injunction restraining the 1st Defendant-Chief Educational Officer from passing the orders of transferring the Management. 7.I.A.No.197 of 1991 was filed for amending the Plaint for including the prayer (bb). Thereafter when the suit was posted for trial, I.A.No.927 of 1993 was filed for impleading the respondents 14 and 15 as parties to the suit (as Defendants 6 and 7) on the ground that they are representatives of the Villagers of Pallar Pudur, Vilangudi Town, Madurai. The trial Court has allowed the application ordering impleading of the respondents 14 and 15 as Defendants 6 and 7. 8.After the amendment was carried out and when the suit was again listed for trial, the proposed parties are said to have filed two applications in I.A.940 of 1998 to recognize them as representatives of Pallar Pudur Village under Order 1 Rule 8 C.P.C.; I.A.No.941 of 1998 to implead them as the Defendants under Order 1 Rule 10 C.P.C. 9.Both the Applications were resisted by the 5th Defendant contending that the Applications were filed only to delay the trial proceedings, that they are not necessary and proper parties; nor they have any interest in the Administration and Management of the School. The Application I.A.No.940 of 1998 was strongly resisted on the ground that the Proposed Parties are not representatives of the Villagers of Pallar Pudur and that they have been set up by the Plaintiffs. The Application I.A.No.940 of 1998 was strongly resisted on the ground that the Proposed Parties are not representatives of the Villagers of Pallar Pudur and that they have been set up by the Plaintiffs. 10.The trial Court has not considered the Application in I.A.No.940 of 1998 and has not determined whether the Proposed Parties - Respondents 1 to 4 are actually the representatives of the Villagers of Pallar Pudur or not. On the other hand, Application in I.A.No.941 of 1998 to implead the Proposed Parties was allowed on the grounds: - *** that the Proposed Party Alaguthai had been elected as the Vice President of the Parents Teachers Association, Shanthi Vidhyalaya Middle School, Pallar Pudur and that she is interested in the proper management and functioning of the School; *** that the 5th Defendant has not shown that the Proposed Parties are not entitled to interfere; *** that the Proposed Parties are necessary parties for proper and effective adjudication. 11.Assailing the Impugned Order ordering impleading the Proposed Parties, the 5th Defendant has preferred this Revision Petition. The learned counsel for the Revision Petitioner has submitted that when the case was posted in the list for trial, the application has been filed mainly with a view to delay the trial proceedings. It is further contended that the 1st Respondent - Alaguthai, is in no way concerned with the subject matter in dispute viz., Shanthi Vidhyalaya Middle School. It is further submitted that the Defendants - 6 and 7 – Respondents - 14 and 15 already represent the Villagers of Pallar Pudur and that there is no necessity to implead the Proposed Parties. It is further contended that in any event, without considering the Application I.A.No.940/1998 (and determining whether the Proposed Parties are representatives of Villagers of Pallar Pudur or not) the Lower Court erred in straightaway ordering impleading of the Revision Petitioners. 12.The learned counsel for the proposed parties has contended that the proposed parties seek to implead themselves in the representative capacity and in the interest of the public cause involved. The lower Court has rightly ordered impleading of the Petition. It is further submitted that only after the proposed parties are impleaded as parties to the suit, the question of impleading them in the representative capacity could be considered. The lower Court has rightly ordered impleading of the Petition. It is further submitted that only after the proposed parties are impleaded as parties to the suit, the question of impleading them in the representative capacity could be considered. It is further submitted that when D-6 and D-7 are not properly pursuing the interest of the public, the Court has rightly ordered impleading of the proposed parties and that the impugned Order does not suffer from any erroneous approach warranting interference. 13.In consideration of the submissions of both parties, the impugned Order and other materials on record, the following points arise for consideration in this revision: - 1.Whether the lower Court was right in ordering the impleading application in I.A.No.941/1998 without considering the Application under Or.1 R.8 CPC in I.A.No.940/1998? 2.Whether the impleading of the proposed parties suffers from jurisdictional error or material irregularity warranting interference? 14.The School - Shanti Vidyalaya Middle School, is said to have been owned and managed by the Guild of Service - Tamil Nadu, through its Madurai Branch. D-4 - Eddy, Manager of the School is said to have transferred the Management of the School to D-5 - Gurupatham. Consequently, Guild of Service lost control of the Management of the school. This transfer has been the subject matter of the litigation between the parties. The Plaintiffs and D-5/Gurupatha have been entangled in the several rounds of litigation relating to the management of Shanti Vidyalaya Middle School. Earlier, O.S.No.1229/1986 was filed by the D-5/Gurupatham for a declaration that he is entitled to manage the School. During the pendency of the suit, the Plaintiffs herein, who were the Teachers of that School, made an unsuccessful attempt to implead themselves as parties to the suit by filing I.A.No.213/1988. C.R.P.No.2281/1988, filed by them was also dismissed by the High Court, permitting them to be examined as Court witnesses. It is stated that despite opportunities, the Plaintiffs herein have not appeared as witnesses in O.S.No.1229/1986 and the said suit was decreed on 12.10.1988. Challenging the Judgment and Decree in O.S.No.1229/1986, the Plaintiffs herein have filed C.R.P. No.2281 of 1988. Pointing out that the opportunities were not utilized by the Plaintiffs to appear as witness, C.R.P. No.3212/1988 was dismissed by the High Court. Challenging the Judgment and Decree in O.S.No.1229/1986, the Plaintiffs herein have filed C.R.P. No.2281 of 1988. Pointing out that the opportunities were not utilized by the Plaintiffs to appear as witness, C.R.P. No.3212/1988 was dismissed by the High Court. In paragraph no.3 of the order in C.R.P.No.3212/1988, the averments in the counter affidavit in C.M.P.No.16344/1988 has been extracted, which reads: "I state that the suit was taken up for trial on 04.10.1988. PW-1 the Plaintiff, was examined on 05.10.1988 and Ex.A-1 to A-15 were marked. The matter was posted for Defendants' evidence on 06.10.1988; on that day, DW-1 was examined and Ex.B-1 to B-6 were marked. The case was posted for further evidence on 07.10.1988, 10.10.1988 and 11.10.1988. On all the hearing dates, Petitioners and their counsel were present in Court and during trial. Despite more than one opportunity to tender evidence made available by the trial Judge, Petitioner did not opt to tender evidence. The case was specifically posted on 07.10.1988, 10.10.1988 and 11.10.1988 for their testimony, if they were willing to depose. They did not tender any evidence. Their counsel's vakalat was received in Court on 15.02.1988 and their counsel was Mr.G.Srinivasan. His valakat was filed both for the I.A. and the suit. The said vakalat subsisted till it was cancelled on 30.06.1988 and the Petitioners' new counsel filed his vakalat in the I.A. and the suit on 27.07.1988. Hence, the allegations are incorrect. It is not bona fide. Petitioners are mere intermeddlers and have no title or claim in the suit institution. They have no locus sandi much less any competence to put forth the title of third party which obliged title is also not true." Accepting the above averments in the counter affidavit, the learned Judge found that the Plaintiffs herein failed to avail the opportunities, pursuant to the order in CRP No.2281/1988. 15.The said suit O.S.No.1229/1986 was filed for a declaration that D-5 - Gurupatham is entitled to manage the school – Shanthi Vidyalaya Middle School. Since the suit was decreed on 12.10.1988, acting upon the Decree of the Court, D-1 - Chief Educational Officer has transferred the management of the school in favour of the 5th Defendant in his proceedings PA.MU.No.28037/A3/86 dated 22.01.1991. Now challenging that order of D-1, recognizing D-5's right in managing the school, the present suit O.S.No.2031/1990 is filed. Since the suit was decreed on 12.10.1988, acting upon the Decree of the Court, D-1 - Chief Educational Officer has transferred the management of the school in favour of the 5th Defendant in his proceedings PA.MU.No.28037/A3/86 dated 22.01.1991. Now challenging that order of D-1, recognizing D-5's right in managing the school, the present suit O.S.No.2031/1990 is filed. In the light of the previous order in C.R.P.No.3212 /1988, can the Plaintiff challenge the order of D-1 – Chief Educational Officer and the entitlement of D-5 to be in management of the School, is the issue to be determined in the suit. 16.Be that as it may, let us consider whether the proposed parties are necessary parties to be impleaded in the suit. Even at the outset, the irregularities in the impugned Order is to be pointed out. Two applications - I.A.No.940/1998 – under Or.1 R.8 CPC and I.A.No.941/1998 – under Or.1 R.10(2) CPC were filed. In I.A.No.941/1998, in the Cause Title, the Petitioners are described as – M.P.Alagu Thai & 3 others (for themselves and as the representatives of the Villagers of Pallar Pudur, Madurai). In the impugned Order also, the proposed parties are described as "for themselves and as representative of the villagers of Pallar Pudur". In the affidavit in I.A.No.940/1998, it is not clearly averred as to how the proposed parties are the representatives for themselves and onbehalf the villagers of Pallar Pudur. In the supporting affidavit in I.A.No.941/1998, the proposed parties have alleged "that the management of the Institution has been entrusted to individuals and they are interested in the subject matter of the suit. Hence are necessary parties to the suit and that villagers are interested in the proper maintenance and administration of the Institution and hence the presence of the villagers is most essential in the suit". On the above averments, the proposed parties have sought to implead themselves as representatives of the villagers of Pallar Pudur Village, as Defendants. The Petition under Or.1 R.8 CPC was not taken up for hearing. It was neither considered nor determined whether the proposed parties could represent the villagers of Pallar Pudur. Without going into the contention regarding the representative capacity of the proposed parties, the order directing the impleading of the proposed parties as the Defendants is legally erroneous. The procedure contemplated under Or.1 R.8 CPC, by publication in the area was not effected. It was neither considered nor determined whether the proposed parties could represent the villagers of Pallar Pudur. Without going into the contention regarding the representative capacity of the proposed parties, the order directing the impleading of the proposed parties as the Defendants is legally erroneous. The procedure contemplated under Or.1 R.8 CPC, by publication in the area was not effected. By allowing I.A.No.941/1998, the lower Court has straightway ordered the proposed parties to be impleaded as the Defendants 8 to 11 in their representative capacity representing the villagers of Pallar Pudur. 17.Report was called for from the Principal District Munsif Madurai, as to the stage of the suit and about the pendency of I.A.No.940/1998. From the report, it is seen that I.A.No.940/1990 is kept alive and that in view of the stay order by the High Court in this revision, the case has been posted to 3021.09.2005. 18.If I.A.No.940/1998 had been taken up earlier, there would have been publication, as contemplated under Or.1 R.8 CPC. Objections might have been forthcoming and things might have taken a different course. Straightaway ordering of I.A.No.941/1998 and thereby ordering impleading of the proposed parties as Defendants for themselves and on behalf of villagers of Pallar Pudur has caused serious prejudice to the contesting 5th Defendant. 19.Apart from the material irregularity, on the factual aspects also, impleading of the proposed parties, as necessary parties either in their individual capacity or representative capacity, does not arise. Earlier in the year 1993, the suit was posted in the Special List. At that time, Respondents 14 and 15 - D-6 and D-7 have filed I.A.No.927/1993 for impleading themselves as Defendants for themselves and as representatives of the villagers of Pallar Pudur. That application was allowed, ordering them to be impleaded as parties in representative capacity for the villagers of Pallar Pudur. The trial was delayed till 1997. After overcoming the hurdles, the suit was ripe for trial. At that time, the present applications I.A.Nos.940/1998 and I.A.Nos.941/1988 were filed by the proposed parties alleging that the interest of the villagers are to be safeguarded and that D-6 and D-7 are not taking proper care of the matter. No material had been shown as if D-6 and D-7 are acting against the interest of other villagers. D-6 and D-7 appear to be sailing along with the Plaintiff. No material had been shown as if D-6 and D-7 are acting against the interest of other villagers. D-6 and D-7 appear to be sailing along with the Plaintiff. 20.In the revision, the proposed parties - Respondents 1 to 4 have been represented by Mr.Saravana Kumar for Mr.K.Krishnamurthi. Counsel for the proposed parties - Respondents 1 to 4 have made elaborate submissions. Counsel appearing for Plaintiffs - Respondents 5 to 9, have adopted the same arguments, thereby indicating that the proposed parties are sailing along with the Plaintiffs. 21.It is stated that the first Petitioner Azhagu Thai is the Vice President of the Parents Teachers Association of Shanthi Vidyalayam Middle School. No material had been produced showing that she is holding any responsible position in the Management of the school. Onbehalf of the proposed parties, only the Family Card and the Voter's list and the Bio-Data of Azhagu Thai and her Community Certificate had been produced. The documents produced by the proposed parties Azhagu Thai would not in any way substantiate her contention that she is interested in the management of the school and that she is in a responsible position of the Management of the School. In the affidavit it is averred that she is the Councilor of the 10th Ward of Vilangudi. Being the Councilor of Vilangudi, the proposed parties do not seem to be connected with the affairs of the School Administration. As noted earlier, by filing I.A.No.927/1993, D-6 and D-7 - Rathinam and Rajaram have been impleaded as the Defendants for themselves and as representatives of the villagers of Pallar Pudur. Whether the transfer of Management of the School to the individual - D-5 - Rathinam would affect the public interest, is the issue to be determined in the suit. D-6 and D-7 representing the villagers would take care of the interest of the villagers. No material had been produced showing that they are acting adverse to the interest of the villagers. While so, the proposed parties are neither necessary nor proper parties. The application cannot be allowed merely because they are interested in the result of the litigation. 22.The belated stage in which the application was filed is also relevant to be noted. As stated earlier, the suit was posted in the list in 1993 and at that time, I.A.No.927/1993 was filed for impleading D-6 and D-7. The application cannot be allowed merely because they are interested in the result of the litigation. 22.The belated stage in which the application was filed is also relevant to be noted. As stated earlier, the suit was posted in the list in 1993 and at that time, I.A.No.927/1993 was filed for impleading D-6 and D-7. Again when the suit was posted in the list in 1996, applications were filed. Serious doubts arise as to the bonafides of the proposed parties. The Plaintiff, fighting out the litigation for nearly two decades, appears to be prolonging the matter by keeping the Management under the stress of litigation for a number of years. D-5 - Gurupatham is also dead. His Legal Representative is now impleaded in this revision. Under such circumstances, the impugned Order made in I.A.No.941/ 1998 suffers from material irregularity. The lower Court was not right in ordering I.A.No.941/1998 without considering I.A.No.940/1998. Since the suit is of the year 1990, this Court is not proposed to remit back the matter to consider I.A.No.940/1998. In view of the order made in this revision, I.A.No.940/1998 is also to be dismissed. 23.For the foregoing reasons, setting aside the order of the Principal District Munsif Madurai, made in I.A.No.941/1998 in O.S.No.239/1990 this revision is allowed. Consequently, I.A.No.940/1998 filed under Or.1 R.8 CPC, which is stated to be pending is also ordered to be dismissed. The learned Principal District Munsif, Madurai is directed to dispose of the suit O.S.No.2031/1990 within three months from the date of receipt of copy of this order.