Judgment 1. The petitioner is first defendant in O.S.No.28 of 2007 on the file of the District Judge, Nilgiris at Udhagamandalam. The suit has been filed for Declaration, consequential Permanent Injunction and also for Mandatory Injunction. The first and second respondents filed the suit in representative capacity and they also filed application under Order 1 Rule 8 CPC to permit them to sue in a representative capacity. The said petition was resisted by the respondents by filing their counter. The court ordered publication in the Tamil daily and in pursuance of the same a publication was made in the news paper dated 23.08.2007 which is a Tamil daily. 2. The learned District Judge allowed the application by observing that a careful perusal of the averments in the plaint would show that the claim of the petitioner is bona fide and as representatives the plaintiffs have raised a proper claim. 3. It is the main stay of Mrs.R. Gouri, learned counsel for the petitioner that the plaintiffs do not represent any organised or registered organisation and their claim is imaginary and they have filed the suit in representative capacity for their convenience with ulterior motive and that notice published under Order 1 Rule 8 in the newspaper has not disclosed the nature of the suit and such requirements are mandatory. 4. Conversely, Mr. Elephant G. Rajendran, learned counsel for the first and second respondents would submit that the procedural or technical aspects need not be gone into while proper remedy is granted by the Court and that even if it is considered as an error, it is only an irregularity and not illegality. 5. While the publication was made in pursuance of the order of the Court, in a Tamil newspaper the notice in English language has been published. It does not contain the nature of the suit, relief claimed and other relevant particulars as expected by law. It is also stated that it should have been in Tamil language enabling all the persons who are reading Tamil dailies and if it could not be understood by the persons who are reading papers, they are not being put to knowledge about the contents and import of the publication. The said contention on behalf of the petitioner is acceptable. In this regard it has to be necessarily observed that the notice is defective. 6. The said contention on behalf of the petitioner is acceptable. In this regard it has to be necessarily observed that the notice is defective. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance upon a Division Bench decision of this Court in AIR 1990 Madras 314 [D. Gopaplan v. Raghava Naicker] in which this Court has observed that non-compliance with the rules would not in any manner render the proceedings in any suit or matter void, unless directed by the Court and the proceedings could not be characterised as non-est for the outcome of the proceedings was only the result of the course adopted by the appellant himself and even as per O.1, R.8 of the Original Side Rules, non-compliance with these rules would not render the proceedings void, unless directed by the Court. 7. In another decision of this Court reported in AIR 1987 Madras 187 [The Assistant Commissioner, Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment, Salem and others etc., v. Nattamai K.S. Ellappa Mudaliar and others] this Court has held that a duty cast on the Court itself to follow meticulously the procedure prescribed by Order 1 Rule 8 of C.P.C and it is immaterial whether the defendants raised the objection in the written statement or not. 8. In AIR 2003 Orissa 157 [Kusasan Samal and others v. Chandramani Pradhan ] it is observed that if the notice under Order 1 Rule 8(2) C.P.C. did not meet the requirement, it has to be termed to be defective. 9. In a decision of Orissa High Court reported in AIR 1987 Orissa 270 [Harihar Jena and others v. Bhagabat Jena and Others] it is held as under:- "3. ... ... ... He placed reliance on (1985) 60 Cut LT 208 : (AIR 1986 Orissa 100) (Sukadev Tapaswai v. Sri Sidheswar Mahadev Bija Silod), (1975) 1 Cut WR 11 (Udayanath Das v. Lingaraj Moharana), (Udayanath Das v. State of Orissa), (1971) 1 Cut WR 699 (Brundabati Thakurani v. Hari Biswal) and an unreported decision of this Court, Second Appeal No.37 of 1968 disposed of on 27. 1971 in support of his contention. It is well settled that the provisions of Order 1, Rule 8 C.P.C. are mandatory and not directory in nature and the notice under Order 1, Rule 8 (2) is an essential precondition for the trial of the suit. 1971 in support of his contention. It is well settled that the provisions of Order 1, Rule 8 C.P.C. are mandatory and not directory in nature and the notice under Order 1, Rule 8 (2) is an essential precondition for the trial of the suit. The notice under the provision must disclose the nature of the suit as well as reliefs claimed therein in order to enable the persons interested to get themselves impleaded as parties to the suit either to support the case or oppose it. The notice must state about why the suit has been filed and what is the relief claimed therein and it must also state as to who are the persons who have been selected to represent the cause.........." Observing as above, the Orissa High Court remanded the matter to the District Munsif Court for issuing proper notice and proceed with the trial of the suit afresh from the stage of the notice in accordance with law. 10. This Court is in respectful agreement with the view taken in the said decision. When it is found that the notice under Order 1, Rule 8 is defective, the avenue should not be shut in entirety to the plaintiff, since it is an irregularity which is liable to be cured. The proper way is to remand back the matter to the Court below to adopt proper procedures and the parties shall also abide by the rules in this regard. If proper notice is not published, then the trial of the suit would become vitiated. 11. In the light of the observations above mentioned, the order challenged is set aside and the matter is remanded back to the trial court to order notice afresh and to proceed with further in accordance with law, from the stage of such notice. 12. In fine, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed with the above said directions. No costs. Connected M.P. is closed.