Judgment : As per order passed by this Court on 14th November, 2008, this appeal is being heard finally and disposed of at the stage of admission. 2. The second appeal is directed against judgment and decree passed by the learned Civil Judge, Junior Division, Basmathnagar, Dist. Parbhani in Regular Civil Suit No.51 of 1995 on 111.2003, which judgment and decree is further confirmed by the learned District Judge-1, Basmathnagar, while deciding Regular Civil Appeal No.52 of 2004 on 14.03.2008. .3. Heard Shri P.R. Katneshwarkar, Advocate for the appellant, Shri S.G. Chincholkar, Advocate for .respondent Nos. 1 and 2 and Shri G.R. Syed, Advocate for respondent No.3. .4. This second appeal is admitted on the following substantial question of law:- ."Whether respondent Nos. 1 and 2 who were original plaintiffs were entitled to file suit in representative capacity regarding alleged encroachment made by the appellant into the property of respondent No.3-Grampanchayat?" .5. Before we proceed to discuss the legal point, it is necessary to set out the facts which are undisputed at this stage and appearing from the record. .Respondent No.3 is Grampanchayat, Girgaon, Tal.Basmath. The appellant is original defendant No.2. Respondent Nos.1 and 2 are original plaintiffs. They are all residents of village Girgaon. Admittedly appellant had been a Member of Grampanchayat which is respondent No.3 and original defendant No.1. Part of City Survey No.1016 situated at Girgaon is the disputed property. C.S. No.1016 is standing in the name of appellant in the City Survey records. Prior to 1978 there were Grampanchayat house numbers given to various properties and Grampanchayat house No.533, which was an open space belonged to respondent No.3-Grampanchayat. One Shamrao Doke, who was Member of Grampanchayat had grabbed said Grampanchayat House No.533 and entered his name in the tax assessment register of respondent No.3. At that time the appellant filed objection to the entry on 23.02.1982, and by Resolution No.108 dated 24.02.1982 respondent No.3 Grampanchayat deleted name of Shamrao Doke and restored its name. Thereafter, the appellant was again elected as a Member of the Grampanchayat. 6. According to respondent Nos. 1 & 2 the appellant encroached into property of the Grampanchayat admeasuring 120.5 sq.mtrs and applied for permission for construction. Accordingly, defendant No.1 Grampanchayat granted permission on 24.09.1993 and the appellant who was original defendant No.2 started construction. Thereafter respondent Nos. 1 and 2 who were original plaintiffs made application to the Collector on 11.1993. 6. According to respondent Nos. 1 & 2 the appellant encroached into property of the Grampanchayat admeasuring 120.5 sq.mtrs and applied for permission for construction. Accordingly, defendant No.1 Grampanchayat granted permission on 24.09.1993 and the appellant who was original defendant No.2 started construction. Thereafter respondent Nos. 1 and 2 who were original plaintiffs made application to the Collector on 11.1993. The Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, made enquiry and objection of respondent Nos. 1 and 2 was rejected. Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 also gave notice to respondent No.3 Grampanchayat through advocate on 110.1994. Though reply was given respondent No.3 Grampanchayat failed to protect its property. .7. It is further case of the appellant that original area of the property of the appellant was only 24.5 sq.mtrs. but he made application to the City Survey record in 1993 and got included 120.45 sq.mtrs. area which belonged to the Grampanchayat and which was original Grampanchayat house No.533 in C.S.No.1016. This was very property earlier grabbed by Shamrao Doke, but by resolution No.108 dated 24.02.1982, respondent No.3 Grampanchayat had taken it back at the instance of the appellant. Thus, the appellant changed the area of his property City Survey No.1016 from 24.5 .sq.mtrs. to 145.00 sq. mtrs. Application for alleged correction of the area was granted by City Survey in 1999. Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 filed suit against respondent No.3 and appellant for direction to the appellant to remove his construction and handover the possession of encroached portion admeasuring 120.5 sq.mtrs. to respondent No.3 (defendant No.1-Grampanchayat). 8. It is defence of the appellant that he had not made any encroachment. Earlier area of his property City Survey No.1016 was wrongly shown as less area. Therefore, he got the property measured and got corrected the measurement. He has obtained permission of the Grampanchayat and he has constructed the house in his own property. The suit is false. 9. Defendant No.1 - Grampanchayat also supported the case of the appellant. It filed written statement. It is admitted that City Survey was carried out at Girgaon in the year 1978. As per record City Survey Nos.1014, 1015 and 1016 were respectively in the name of Chudaman, Sakharam and Khandu and 1017 was common property belonging to all three. 9. Defendant No.1 - Grampanchayat also supported the case of the appellant. It filed written statement. It is admitted that City Survey was carried out at Girgaon in the year 1978. As per record City Survey Nos.1014, 1015 and 1016 were respectively in the name of Chudaman, Sakharam and Khandu and 1017 was common property belonging to all three. It is admitted that property No. 533 was earlier in the name of Shamrao Doke and by Grampanchayat Resolution No.1018 dated 23.02.1982, Grampanchayat House No.533 which was open side belonging to Grampanchayat, was restored in the name of Grampanchayat. It is stated that as per Grampanchayat record the appellant has not made any encroachment. It is, however, true that permission for construction was granted. It is also admitted that the plaintiff had filed complaint to the concerned officers and Chief Executive Officer, Parbhani made enquiry and held that there was no substance in the complaint. 10. In para 1 of the plaint the plaintiffs/respondent Nos. 1 and 2 have stated that they are resident of village Girgaon. They have also right to vote in the election of village panchayat. They have interest in the properties of Grampanchayat and therefore suit was filed in the representative capacity as a public interest litigation. It is admitted in para 2 that respondent No.3 Grampanchayat is a statutory body and competent to sue or to be sued. It is case of respondent Nos. 1 & 2/plaintiffs that the appellant is a powerful Member of Grampanchayat and all Members of Grampanchayat and its officers are working under his influence and they failed to protect property of Grampanchayat. Therefore, it is argued that this suit is tenable and cannot be thrown out as non-maintainable. 11. Along with the plaint, the plaintiffs have filed application for permission to file suit in representative capacity and said application which is given Exh.10 is granted. The order passed by the Civil Judge, Junior Division, Basmatnagar on 24.03.1995 is as follows:- "Heard Shri R.K. Ambekar, Adv. Considering the nature of suit and on perusing relevant documents, I am satisfied that the permission to file suit in representative character deserves to be granted. Hence, application is allowed." Thereafter necessary public notice was published in the news paper daily "Prajawani" dated 30.06.1995. The copy of publication is produced on record. There is also due publication as required by the law. Hence, application is allowed." Thereafter necessary public notice was published in the news paper daily "Prajawani" dated 30.06.1995. The copy of publication is produced on record. There is also due publication as required by the law. The question of locus standi of the respondent was not raised before the Trial Court or the First Appellate Court. The points for determination framed by the District Court are relating to encroachment and grant of reliefs. 12. The learned advocate Shri Katneshwarkar has argued that this is nothing but public interest litigation and such litigation cannot be entertained by the Civil Court. He stated that respondent Nos. 1 and 2 who were plaintiffs had no interest in the suit property except that they are voters of the Grampanchayat and resident of village Girgaon. The learned Advocate Shri Katneshwarkar referred to Order 1 Rule 1 and Order 1 Rule 3 of the C.P.C. As per Order 1 Rule 1 a person can be joined as plaintiff in suit where right to relief exists for such person jointly, severally or in the alternative. On the other hand it is submitted that Respondent No.3 -Grampanchayat is a public body and though right to sue for relief against encroachment vests in Grampanchayat, it has to act through human agency. A property of Grampanchayat is the property of the society at large. Such property belongs to all villagers and it cannot be said that villagers have no interest. Definitely they are beneficiaries for whom the Grampanchayat holds such property. 13. The learned advocate for respondent Nos. 1 & 2 cited three authorities. He referred to case of this Court in Fatima Vs. Village Panchayat, Merces, (2000 (3) Mh.L.J.624). It was suit for injunction and it is observed that where there is violation of Municipal rules or by-laws resulting in invasion of right to light, air, privacy or causing pollution or causing material injury by a neighbour furnishes the plaintiff a cause of action. Civil Suit to challenge the invasion of his rights is maintainable. In that case writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India was filed and it was observed that writ was not a proper proceedings for adjudication of such dispute. The disputed question cannot be satisfactorily gone into or adjudicated by the High Court in the exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226. In that case writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India was filed and it was observed that writ was not a proper proceedings for adjudication of such dispute. The disputed question cannot be satisfactorily gone into or adjudicated by the High Court in the exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226. However, Civil Court has jurisdiction to maintain a suit regarding construction contrary to the building bye-laws and in violation of neighbours right to life. In that case as suit was maintainable, the petitioner was directed to file suit. 14. Another case cited is Pratibha Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. and Anr. V/s. State of Maharashtra and Ors., (1991) 3 S.C.C.341). In that case the learned advocate relied on following observations from para 6:- "It was pointed out by Mr. K.K. Singhvi, learned counsel for the Corporation that the tendency of raising unlawful constructions by the builders in violation of the rules and regulations of the Corporation was rampant in the city of Bombay and the Municipal Corporation with its limited sources was finding it difficult to curb such activities. We are also of the view that the tendency of raising unlawful constructions and unauthorized encroachments is increasing in the entire country and such activities are required to be dealt with by firm hands. Such unlawful constructions are against public interest and hazardous to the safety of occupiers and residents of multistoreyed buildings." 15. Third case cited is Jiwanlal s/o. Pokardas Motwani V/s. State of Maharashtra and ors, (2004 (1) Mh.L.J.265). In that case this Court has taken view that where encroachment is made on public road, inconvenience and wrong to public including the plaintiff must be presumed. In such a suit the plaintiff, even though not suing in a representative capacity, need not show damage caused to him in order to obtain relief. In that case claim for mandatory injunction was decreed. Similarly, whenever public open site of Grampanchayat which can be used for benefit of villagers as a whole is encroached upon, villagers cannot be said to be not affected by such action and it cannot be said that respondent Nos. 1 and 2 are not interested or affected by the encroachment. 16. Similarly, whenever public open site of Grampanchayat which can be used for benefit of villagers as a whole is encroached upon, villagers cannot be said to be not affected by such action and it cannot be said that respondent Nos. 1 and 2 are not interested or affected by the encroachment. 16. While discussing object of Order 1 Rule 8 of C.P.C. by Mulla, (Seventeenth Edition, Vol.2, Page 35) it is stated that Rule 8 is an exception to the general rule that all persons interested in a suit ought to be made parties thereto. The object for which this provision (Rule 8) is enacted is really to facilitate the decision of questions in which a large body of persons are interested, without recourse to the ordinary procedure. In cases where the common right or interest of a community or members of an association or large sections is involved, there will be insuperable practical difficulty in the institution of suits under the ordinary procedure, where each individual has to maintain an action by a separate suit. Thus, to avoid numerous suits being filed for decision of a common question, Order 1, Rule 8 has come to be enacted. 17. In case of Lingam Ramaseshayya V/s. Myneni Ramayya and Ors, (AIR 1957 A.P.964), it is held that to bring a case within the provisions of Order 1 Rule 8, all the members of a class should have a common interest in a common subject-matter and a common grievance and the relief sought should in its nature, be beneficial to all. In this case, the relief is sought on behalf of villagers by the plaintiffs. They claimed that property belonging to village Grampanchayat was encroached upon by the appellant and respondent No.3-Grampanchayat is not taking any action. It cannot be said that the villagers are not affected. 18. In the case of The Chairman, Tamil Nadu Housing Board, Madras V/s. T.N. Ganapathy, (AIR 1990 S.C.642), following observations are made:- "7. .................................... The provisions of O.1 R.8 have been included in the Code in the public interest so as to avoid multiplicity of litigation. The condition necessary for application of the provisions is that the persons on whose behalf the suit is being brought must have the same interest. In other words either the interest must be common or they must have a common grievance, which they seek to get redressed.... .............................................. The condition necessary for application of the provisions is that the persons on whose behalf the suit is being brought must have the same interest. In other words either the interest must be common or they must have a common grievance, which they seek to get redressed.... .............................................. The object for which this provision is enacted is really to facilitate the decision of questions, in which a large number of persons are interested, without recourse to the ordinary procedure. The provision must, therefore, receive an interpretation which will subserve the object for its enactment." 19. Inview of above, in my opinion, the substantial question of law raised in this case will have to be answered in favour of the plaintiffs. Present suit is very much tenable considering present state of affairs in the society. Considering rampant of corruption, tendency to grab public property and considering limitations of writ jurisdiction, in absence of any prohibition in C.P.C., in my opinion, the provision will have to be given wider interpretation in the interest of society. So, taking into consideration totality of the circumstances and inaction on the part of Grampanchayat in protecting its interest, I hold that present suit is perfectly tenable. 20. It may be noted that there is no dispute that Grampanchayat House No. 533 was a vacant plot on the Eastern side of C.T.S. No.1053. It is also specifically admitted by Advocate for the Grampanchayat Shri Syed that no C.T.S. number is given to the Grampanchayat property No.533. Simply, it has vanished and non-existent as per record of city survey. It is worth noting that it was the appellant who was instrumental in getting Grampanchayat Resolution No.108 dated 24.02.1982 passed, when Shamrao Doke had made encroachment on the Grampanchayat property No.533 and when it was entered in the name of Grampanchayat. It is also worth noting that the city survey was carried out in the year 1978, prior to the resolution entering the name of Grampanchayat to Grampanchayat House No.533 by deleting name of Shamrao Doke who has grabbed it and entered his name when he was the Member of the Grampanchayat. The present appellant who was also Grampanchayat Member had made application to City Survey Office for entering his name in the record in the year 1993 and thereafter he managed to change area from 24.5 sq.mtrs. of City Survey No. 1016 to 145.00 sq. The present appellant who was also Grampanchayat Member had made application to City Survey Office for entering his name in the record in the year 1993 and thereafter he managed to change area from 24.5 sq.mtrs. of City Survey No. 1016 to 145.00 sq. mtrs and this order was passed after the appellant’s application in 1999. Immediately, thereafter applications were moved by the plaintiffs and since then they have been agitating the matter. 21. It is also brought to my notice that it is said that Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad had made enquiries. The letter is at Exh.70 dated 20.07.1994. It is one page order passed by the Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad. Only on the basis of property card issued in respect of City Survey No. 1016 dated 10.02.1993, it was held that there was no encroachment by present appellant into property of respondent No.3 Grampanchayat. Basic grievance that entry in said property card was obtained by encroaching on Grampanchayat property and by claiming it as his own by the appellant, is not at all looked into or addressed. This shows that alleged enquiry is mere farce. It does not appear that any enquiry was made and an attempt was made to find out where was Grampanchayat house property No. 544 and whether said property of Grampanchayat was being grabbed in the name of correction of City Survey record. There is concurrent findings of fact. In the circumstances I am satisfied that this appeal has no merit. The same deserves to be dismissed with costs. 22. In the result this second appeal is dismissed. The orders of the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court are hereby confirmed. The appellant to pay costs of respondent Nos. 1 & 2 throughout and bear his own.