Judgment :- 1. Broadly but briefly, narratively but precisely, the relevant facts absolutely necessary and germane for the disposal of this Application would run thus: (i) The plaintiff filed the Suit seeking the following reliefs: (a) to declare that the plaintiff is the sole and absolute owner of the patta land of a total extent of 2,482 sq.ft., that is 17 feet North to South and 146 Feet East to West, in the extreme South-West corner of the plaintiff’s property in R.S. No.665/1, Block No.16 of Fort-Tondiarpet Taluk, under C.A. No. 25/82-83 dated 27. 1982, and more fully described in Schedule-B hereunder, and situated adjacent to the defendants property and abutting the Road, and being part and parcel of the plaintiff’s overhaul premises Nos.1 and 12-A, Ritherdon Road (earlier known as No.7, Vepery Church Road), Vepery, Chennai – 600 007, and more fully described in Schedule-A hereunder. (b) consequently to grant permanent injunction restraining the defendants, their representatives, servants, agents, executors, administrators, assigns, successors, or any other person(s), directly or indirectly connected with the defendants, from in any way and manner interfering with the plaintiff’s peaceful possession and enjoyment of the said Plaint schedule-B land.” (ii) The same plaintiff filed this Application seeking the following relief: “to grant permission to the applicant to file the Suit against all the three defendants in a representative capacity, as they representing their respective numerous members.” 2. The respondent/first defendant filed the counter denying and refuting, challenging and impugning the averments/allegations in the affidavit accompanying the Petition. 3.The point for consideration is as to whether the Application under Order1, Rule 8 seeking permission to treat the Suit as representative suit by way of citing D1 and D3 as representatives of unidentifiable huge number of persons could be allowed or not? 4. The learned counsel for the respondents/defendants, by inviting the attention of this Court to the affidavit, accompanying the Application No.5015 of 2008 seeking rejection of the Plaint, would develop his argument that in the said Application the defendants raised the plea that the defendants 1 and 3 are not the registered bodies. 5. Whereupon, the learned counsel for the applicant/plaintiff would submit that by way of abundant caution, the applicant/plaintiff has chosen to file this Application under Order 1, Rule 8 of C.P.C seeking permission as aforesaid. 5. Whereupon, the learned counsel for the applicant/plaintiff would submit that by way of abundant caution, the applicant/plaintiff has chosen to file this Application under Order 1, Rule 8 of C.P.C seeking permission as aforesaid. In support of his contention, he would also cite the two precedents in this regard as under: (i) Singhai Lal Chand Jain v. Rashtriya Swayam Sewak Sangh, Panna and others, AIR 1996 SC 1211 , an excerpt from it would run thus: “13. Thus it could be held that the Sangh having been duly represented in the previous proceedings and conducted, the litigation on behalf of the Sangh bonafide and were unsuccessful in the Suit, no one on behalf of the Sangh can lay any objection in the execution nor plead nullity of the decree. The doctrine of res judicata prohibited the members of the Sangh to obstruct the execution of the decree. The decree of ejectment binds every member of the Sangh and therefore, the appellant is entitled to have the decree executed and possession taken.” (ii) The Victorial Edward Hall v. M. Samraj and others, 2001 (3) CTC 12: 2001 (3) MLJ 39 , an excerpt from it would run thus: “14. It is evident from the case cited above that the first respondent herein can file a Petition under Order 1, Rule 8, C.P.C. for grant of leave of Court even upto Appellate stage and non-filing of a Petition of this nature along with the Suit by the first respondent herein, even while written statement was not filed by all the defendants before the Trial Court, will not lead to hold that the Suit filed by the first respondent as plaintiff is not maintainable.” 6. A plain reading of those precedents coupled with Order 1, Rule 8 of C.P.C. and Order 3, Rule 2 of the High Court Original Side Rules would clearly highlight and spotlight the fact that even in a pending Suit, application under Order 1, Rule 8 of C.P.C would lie, so as to enable the plaintiff to get permission to sue some of the defendants by citing them as representatives of a large number of people. 7. 7. Whereas, the learned counsel for the respondents/defendants would set forth and put forth his argument to the effect that the plaintiff, as an after though, cannot simply file an Application under Order 1, Rule 8 of C.P.C. and try to convert an ordinary Suit as a representative Suit as against R1/D1 and R3/D3. According to the learned counsel for the respondents/defendants, the plaintiff was fully aware of the statue of the defendants 1 and 3 as unregistered bodies and in such a case, even as on the date of filing of the Plaint itself, he ought to have filed this Application and sought for permission, but he had not chosen to do so. 8. The learned counsel for the respondents, by inviting the attention of this Court to the copy of the judgment dated 011. 2003 passed on O.S. No.3271 of 1996 by the I Assistant Judge, would argue that the plaintiff was fully aware of the fact that defendants 1 and 3 are unregistered bodies and in such a case, he ought to have filed the suit property by invoking Order 1, Rule 8 of C.P.C., but he has not chosen to do so. Hence, it is only an after thought on the part of the plaintiff to file the present Application under Order 1, Rule 8 of C.P.C. In support of his contention he would reply on the judgment of the Honourable Supreme Court reported in Kalyan Singh v. Smt. Chhoti and others, AIR 1990 SC 396 , an excerpt from would run thus: “13. Counsel for the appellant, however, relied upon statements from judgments in the previous Suit in support of his contention that it was representative suit on behalf of the Darjee Community. Ex.A1 is the judgment of the Trial Court. It begins with a sentence. “This is a representative Suit by the plaintiffs Kalyan Singh and Suraj Narayan on behalf of the Panchayat Darjian for recovery of possession of the baghichi.” But this statement may not help counsel for the appellant, since the Sduit was said to be on behalf of the ‘Panchayat Darjian’ and not Darjee community. Ex.A4 is the High Court judgment in the Second Appeal arising out of the that Suit. There are High Court has stated. “That the suit was brought by Kalyan Singh and another against Bhonrilal by the representatives of Darjee community. Ex.A4 is the High Court judgment in the Second Appeal arising out of the that Suit. There are High Court has stated. “That the suit was brought by Kalyan Singh and another against Bhonrilal by the representatives of Darjee community. “Here again we do not find much support to the appellant. The suit might have been instituted by representatives of the Darjee community; but that by itself was not sufficient to constitute the Suit as a representative Suit. For a representative Suit, the Court’s permission under Order 1, Rule 8 of the Code of Civil Procedure is mandatory. One does not know whether any such permission was obtained. The pleading in that Suit or the order obtained under Order 1, rule 8 has not been produced. There is no other evidence to support the contention of either of the parties. In the absence of necessary material the conclusion one way or the other as to the nature of the previous Suit will not be justified.” 9. A plain reading of the above excerpt, including the whole judgment would reveal that an ordinary Suit should not be converted into a representative Suit, but here the facts are different. 10. Whereas, the learned counsel for the applicant/plaintiff would submit that in the previous judgment dated 11. 2003 passed in O.S. No. 3271 of 1996, the findings are not against the plaintiff herein and in fact, the Court held that as per the defendants’ Contention, the present D1 was a registered body. 11. A plain reading of the said earlier judgment would creat doubt in the mind of the Court and in fact, the learned counsel for the defendants would admit that there are some mistakes in the said judgment. 12. At present, this Court is not very much concerned with the purport of the earlier judgment, but only with the fact as to whether Order 1, Rule 8 Application filed by the applicant/plaintiff could be allowed or not. The Suit itself is by way of ascertaining the right over the suit property by the plaintiff, which is a registered body. According to the plaintiff, the defendants along with a number of local residents are trying to interfere with the suit property on the ground as through it is a proamboke land, even though, as per the plaintiff, it is a path way for having ingress and egress to its school. According to the plaintiff, the defendants along with a number of local residents are trying to interfere with the suit property on the ground as through it is a proamboke land, even though, as per the plaintiff, it is a path way for having ingress and egress to its school. Once it is found that admittedly D1 and D3 are unregistered bodies and that large number of people are also backing D1 and D3, naturally the Suit has to be proceeded as against D1 and D3 by citing them as the representatives of the group of people concerned and once permission is granted and publications are effected, it is for the interested persons even to get themselves impleaded. As of now I am of the considered opinion that there is no embargo or implediment as per law to give such permission to cite D1 and D3 in the Suit as representatives of the persons concerned, who are trying to interfere with the alleged right of the plaintiff. 13. With the above observation this Application is allowed. The plaintiff shall take steps to comply with Order 8, Rule 2 of C.P.C. and shall cause publication in two Tamil dailies, namely, ‘Dhinakaran’ and ‘Dhinamalar’ having circulation in Madras City and in any one of the local dailies in Karnataka in kanada language and also in ‘Decon Chronicle’ having circulation in Bangalore, within a period of one month from the date of receipt of copy of this order.