Judgment :- Common Order: Heard both sides. 2. The learned District Munsif, Kan­gayam, taking note of the relief prayed for in O. S. No. 26 of 2002 and finding that the plain-tiffs have not prayed for any relief against the public of Uppupalayam Village and that the relief relates to "ABCD" fence, has dismissed Application Nos. 412 and 413 of 2004 filed by the third parties seeking for impleadment in the suit as well as to defend the suit in a repre­sentative capacity. 3. A perusal of the relief prayed for in the suit shows that the plaintiffs have not prayed for a declaratory decree; it is for a permanent injunction against the defendants therein and also for a mandatory injunction for removal of "ABCD" fence. In the affidavit filed in sup-port of the applications in I.A. Nos. 412 and 413 of 2004, the third parties have specifically stated that all of them belong to Uppupalayam, Vellakovil Village and they filed the said ap­plication on behalf of the entire villagers of Uppupalayam. It is further stated that they came to know that the plaintiffs have filed the said suit in respect of a Pavadi. It is their claim that inasmuch as the said place-Pavadi is a common property being used by all the villag­ers, if there is any dispute/claim regarding the same, it has to be decided by hearing all the parties, including the villagers of Uppu­palayam. 4. It is not in dispute that plaintiffs have filed the said suit in a representative capacity, viz., on behalf of Mudaliar Community of Up­pupalayam, Vellakovil Village, Kangayam Taluk. Though no specific objection was raised with regard to the filing of the suit in a representative capacity, particularly as to the non-compliance of Order 1, Rule 8 of C.P.C., learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in this revision pointed out that the plaintiffs have not strictly adhered to the provisions as stated in Order 1, Rule 8 of C.P.C., as well as Rule 13 and the Form provided in Civil Rules of Practice. Order 1, Rule 8, C.P.C., enables the parties, either as plaintiffs or as defendants, if they have some common interest, to join to­gether and pursue their remedy before the ap­propriate Court. However, they have to fulfil the conditions prescribed in Order 1 and Rules 8 and 8-A, C.P.C. 5. Order 1, Rule 8, C.P.C., enables the parties, either as plaintiffs or as defendants, if they have some common interest, to join to­gether and pursue their remedy before the ap­propriate Court. However, they have to fulfil the conditions prescribed in Order 1 and Rules 8 and 8-A, C.P.C. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner, by drawing my attention to the publication effected in "Daily Thanthi" dated 11.2.2002 by the plaintiff, has submitted that in the ab­sence of any details regarding the relief prayed for and the description of the suit property, the villagers had no opportunity to participate in the suit. He further contended that the plain-tiffs have to strictly comply with the provi­sions of Order 1, Rules 8 and 8-A, C.P.C. The learned counsel for the petitioner also relied on the judgment of the Orissa High Court re-ported in Sukadev v. Sri Sidheswar Mahadev Bija Silod, AIR 1986 Ori.100 wherein a learned Judge of the said Court, while consid­ering the Order 1, Rule 8(2) of C.P.C., has concluded as follows: "Courts, when called upon to deal with ap­plications under Order 1, Rule 8, C.P.C., should bear in mind that the provisions con-lined therein are mandatory and not merely directory and are essential pre-cond­itions for trial of the case as a repre­sentative suit. Courts must see that if they direct that the notice should be by public advertisement, it must disclose the nature of the suit as well as the relief’s claimed therein in order to enable the persons interested to get themselves impleaded as parties to the suit either to support the case or to defend against it. Further, the notice must mention the names of the persons who have been permitted to represent them so that the per-ms interested may have an opportunity of Rowing who have been selected to represented them." Learned counsel also relied on a decision of this Court reported in Assistant Commissioner, H.R. & C.E., Salem v. N.K.S.E. Mudaliar, AIR 1987 Mad. 187 wherein it is held that the procedure under Order 1, Rule 8 of C.P.C., has to be followed and without doing so, no relief could be granted to the individual concerned. 6. 187 wherein it is held that the procedure under Order 1, Rule 8 of C.P.C., has to be followed and without doing so, no relief could be granted to the individual concerned. 6. A reading of the above provisions viz., Order 1, Rules 8, 8-A of C.P.C. and Rule 13 and the Form of the Civil Rules of Practice, clearly show that public notice should disclose full details of the suit viz., nature of the suit as well as the relief/claim made therein to those who are impleaded as parties to the suit, either to support the case or to defend it. Though there is no need to decide the compliance of the provisions in this revision, as rightly pointed out, in view of the claim of the proposed parties in respect of the subject matter of the property, I am of the view that their presence in the suit would ultimately help the residents of Uppupalayam Village. These materials have not been considered by the learned District Munsif, Kangayam and therefore, I am inclined to accept the claim of the petitioner. Taking note of the fact that the property in question viz., Pavadi is in existence and is being used by all the villagers, only by partici­pating in the suit, it would be possible for them to highlight their stand. However, it is need-less to mention that it is for them to substanti­ate their plea/defence at the time of trial. 7. In these circumstances, the common order passed by the learned District Munsif, Kangayam dated 19.4.2005 made in I.A. Nos. 412 & 413 of 2004 in O.S. No. 26 of 2002 is set aside. Both the revisions are allowed. No costs. C.M.P. No. 16631 of 2005 is closed. Revisions allowed.