JUDGMENT : 1. Challenge in this civil revision petition is made to the fair and decreetal orders, dated 14.07.2006, passed in I.A.No.119 of 2005 in O.S.No.15 of 2005, on the file of the Subordinate Court, Ambasamudram. 2. The parties are referred to as per the rankings in the suit. 3. The plaintiff laid the suit, in O.S.No.15 of 2005, against the defendants in the representative capacity stating that they are representing the Yadhava Community of Pappakudi Village and accordingly, claiming that the suit has been laid against them on the basis that they are the representatives of the above said community and also the members of the Yadhava Society of Pappakudi Village. The above said suit has been laid by the plaintiff seeking for recovery of money due to him, on the basis of the promissory note, dated 16.05.2002, said to have been executed by the defendants for themselves as well as on behalf of the Yadhava Community of Pappakudi Village and contending that the amount had been borrowed from him and another person, by name, Mahalingam Asari, for the purpose of improving the Marriage Hall and also to rectify the repair works of the said Marriage Hall constructed on behalf of the Yadhava Community. Inasmuch as the said suit had come to be laid by the plaintiff against the defendants in the representative capacity, it is seen that the plaintiff, along with the plaint, has also preferred, I.A.No.119 of 2005, under Order I Rule 8 of the Code of Civil Procedure, and briefly stated, in the above said application also, the plaintiff has averred that the suit has been laid, on the basis of the promissory note, for the recovery of the amount and that the defendants are the President, Secretary and Treasurer respectively of the Yadhava Community of Pappakudi Village and the Marriage Hall had been constructed for the benefit of the Yadhava Community and the defendants were instrumental for the Marriage Hall and accordingly, for completing the same, as well as to make the improvements, according to the plaintiff, the defendants borrowed Rs.4,00,000/- from him on 16.05.2002, however, no amount had been repaid by the defendants and when the plaintiff insisted for repayment, according to the case of the plaintiff, the defendants had executed another promissory note, on 08.05.2002, in his favour for a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- and another promissory note in favour of the said Mahalingam Asari and further claiming that though the defendants had assured that they would repay the borrowed sum within twenty days, however, did not honour the promise and evaded the repayment and inasmuch as there are 500 contributors in the Yadhava Community of Pappakudi Village, the plaintiff was unable to levy the suit against all the people of the Yadhava Community and inasmuch as the defendants borrowed the above said sum for the benefit of the Yadhava Community and the Marriage Hall has also been constructed only for the benefit of the above said Community and furthermore, as the Yadhava Society is not a registered Society, accordingly, further claiming that there is no conflict of interest between the defendants and the Yadhava Community People of Pappakudi Village and the defendants continued to function as the office bearers of the above said Society, accordingly, sought for permission to sue the defendants in the representative capacity of the Yadhava Community of Pappakudi Village. 4. 4. As could be seen from the materials placed on record, notice had been ordered by the Court concerned to the defendants as well as inviting objections from the people belonging to the Yadhava Community of Pappakudi Village, by directing the plaintiff to effect the service of notice through paper publication and it is also seen that necessary paper publication has also been effected and following the same, the defendants 2 and 3 had filed their counter opposing the application preferred by the plaintiff under Order I Rule 8 of the Code of Civil Procedure. In addition to that, it is also noted that 124 objectors had appeared before the Court, and accordingly, on their behalf, it is found that the first objector had put-forth his objections to the application preferred by the plaintiff. 5. In addition to that, it is also noted that 124 objectors had appeared before the Court, and accordingly, on their behalf, it is found that the first objector had put-forth his objections to the application preferred by the plaintiff. 5. Briefly stated, the defendants 2 and 3 resisted the above said application laid by the plaintiff denying the borrowal of the suit amount from the plaintiff and the execution of the promissory note in his favour as claimed in the plaint, for the purpose of improving the Marriage Hall and rectifying the repair works on behalf of the Yadhava Community and also denied that that there are 500 contributors of Yadhava Community in the Village and also denied the case of the plaintiff that they and the first respondent had executed two promissory notes on 08.05.2002, one in favour of the plaintiff and another in favour of the said Mahalingam Asari, however, accepting that the Marriage Hall had been constructed by the Yadhava Community in the Village, pleaded that there is no necessity to borrow any amount and on the other hand, put-forth that the contributions had been collected from the contributors and out of the same, the Marriage Hall had been constructed and according to them, only with a view to seek attachment before Judgment of the Marriage Hall of Yadhava Community, the plaintiff has falsely laid the suit, on the footing that the defendants are representing the Yadhava Community and that the amount had been borrowed by them from the plaintiff for the purpose of the construction of the Marriage Hall on behalf of the Yadhava Community, on the other hand, according to the defendants, the suit promissory note is a fabricated document and further, pleaded that the plaintiff and the first defendant had colluded together and contended that the site of the Marriage Hall belong to one Ramasamy Chettiar and the President of the Yadhava Community of Pappakudi Village, is Murugan, Secretary-Ganesan and the Treasurer-Esakki and therefore, the contra averments to the above said case of the defendants 2 and 3 are false and also claimed that the plaintiff is not entitled to encumber the Marriage Hall and the application is liable to be dismissed. 6. 6. The first objector also put-forth the case, in short, almost reiterating the case projected by the defendants 2 and 3 and contended that the application laid by the plaintiff for seeking permission to sue the defendants in the representative capacity of the Yadhava Community is not maintainable and according to them also, only for the purpose of attaching the Marriage Hall, the above said suit has been laid by the plaintiff against the defendants in the representative capacity and denied the execution of the suit promissory note by the defendants in favour of the plaintiff for the purpose of constructing the Marriage Hall on behalf of the Yadhava Community and put-forth the case that the plaint copy has not been served on the objectors or their counsel and also pleaded that the contractor Subbiah Konar, to whom the construction work of the Marriage Hall was entrusted, committed several irregularities in collusion with the first defendant, the plaintiff and the said Mahalingam Asari and claimed that a sum of Rs.1,88,368/-, out of the amount collected, was entrusted by the first defendant to the new Management and stated that the above said Subbiah Konar, the first defendant and the said Mahalingam Asari as well as the plaintiff, with a view to wreck vengeance on the Yadhava Community People, had created the false records and therefore, the application is liable to be dismissed. 7. The Court below, on a perusal of the records placed on record and the submissions made as well as the pleas put-forth by the respective parties, on the mere footing that the defendants 2 and 3 had denied the genuineness of the promissory note as well as put-forth the case that no amount had been received by them from the plaintiff and only through the contributions made by the contributors of the Yadhava Community, the Marriage Hall had been constructed and as per the case of the defendants 2 and 3, the present President, Secretary and Treasurer of the Yadhava Community Society are not the defendants and on the other hand, one Murugan, Ganesan and Esakki are the office bearers, accordingly, proceeded to determine that the suit promissory note was not executed by the defendants in the representative capacity of Yadhava Community people and resultantly, dismissed the above said application preferred by the plaintiff. Challenging the same, the present civil revision petition has been preferred. 8. Challenging the same, the present civil revision petition has been preferred. 8. It is also stated during the course of arguments as well as could be gathered from the records available that consequent to the dismissal of the above said application of the plaintiff, it is seen that the Court below had also dismissed the suit laid by the plaintiff. 9. As above noted, according to the plaintiff, the defendants had borrowed the suit amount from him for themselves as well as on the representative capacity of Yadhava Community of Pappakudi Village, for the purpose of improving the Marriage Hall and rectifying the repair works and accordingly, inasmuch as the plaintiff is unable to levy the suit against all the people belonging to Yadhava Community of the Village and furthermore, as the Yadhava Society is not a registered Society, as such, accordingly, levied the suit only as against the defendants in the representative capacity and also seeking permission of the Court, with reference to the same, preferred the application in I.A.No.119 of 2005. In the said application, as seen supra, notice had been ordered to the defendants as well as calling for objections from the objectors, if any, by directing the plaintiff to effect the service of notice through paper publication and accordingly, paper publication having been effected, it is found that the first defendant had not resisted the above said application of the plaintiff and on the other hand, the defendants 2 and 3 put-forth their counter denying the case of the plaintiff in toto. That apart, as many as 124 objectors had appeared in the Court and on behalf of the objectors, one objector preferred the objection to the relief sought for by the plaintiff in the above said application. As could be seen from the materials placed on record, there appears to be no evidence adduced by the respective parties either oral or documentary in respect of their respective cases, with reference to the above said application. However, it is seen that though the Court below had claimed that the documents were perused, probably it appears that the Court below had perused the documents filed by the plaintiff along with the plaint. However, it is seen that though the Court below had claimed that the documents were perused, probably it appears that the Court below had perused the documents filed by the plaintiff along with the plaint. Be that as it may, it is found that only based upon the submissions put-forth by the respective parties and the pleas levelled by them in support of their respective cases, based on the same alone, the Court below appears to have dismissed the above said application preferred by the plaintiff, merely on the footing that inasmuch as the defendants 2 and 3 had denied the borrowal of the suit amount from the plaintiff and also the execution of the suit promissory note in favour of the plaintiff, as claimed in the plaint, for themselves as well as on behalf of the Yadhava Community and also put-forth the case that the Marriage Hall had been constructed only out of the contributions made by the contributors of the Yadhava Community and also put-forth that it is only Murugan, Ganesan and Esakki are the office bearers of the Yadhava Community Society and also on the reasoning that the defendants 2 and 3 had disputed the other averments put-forth by the plaintiff, proceeded to determine that the suit promissory note had not been executed for the benefit of the Yadhava Community people and accordingly, dismissed the above said application of the plaintiff. 10. After hearing the submissions of the respective counsel, it is found that the impugned order of the Court below is erroneous and not sustainable in the eyes of law. When it is found that the Court had ordered notice in the application preferred by the plaintiff for seeking permission to sue against the defendants in the representative capacity and consequently, the plaintiff had also taken notice by way of the paper publication, by way of the same alone, it could be gathered that the Court below had granted the necessary permission to the plaintiff, under Order I Rule 8 of the Code of Civil Procedure. While so, when thereafter the defendants 2 and 3 as well as the objectors had appeared in the Court and put-forth their objections with reference to the claim of the plaintiff to sue them in the representative capacity. While so, when thereafter the defendants 2 and 3 as well as the objectors had appeared in the Court and put-forth their objections with reference to the claim of the plaintiff to sue them in the representative capacity. As rightly put-forth by the plaintiff's counsel, at the most, after inviting the counter of the defendants 2 and 3 and the objections of the objectors, the Court below should have, only if the objectors deem it fit, permitted them to be made as parties to the suit and put-forth their respective cases and accordingly, on the basis of the pleas put-forth by the parties concerned, after framing necessary issues with reference to the same, including the entitlement of the plaintiff to sue against the defendants in the representative capacity on behalf of the Yadhava Community, should have disposed of the suit as per law. On the other hand, the Court below instead of following the above said mandatory procedures, as contemplated under Order I Rule 8 C.P.C., particularly, Order I Rule 8(3) C.P.C., and without understanding the scope and the principles of law outlined under Order I Rule 8 C.P.C., is found to have straightaway dismissed the application preferred by the plaintiff for seeking permission, merely based on the averments of the defendants 2 and 3 put-forth in their counter. The above said approach of the Court below is found to be totally against the canons of law and cannot stand scrutiny in the eyes of law. 11. In this connection, for a better understanding of the scope and the principles of law outlined under Order I Rule 8 C.P.C., it is apt to refer the decision of this Court in Sankiah and others vs. Vadakasi and others, reported in 1980 TLNJ 86, wherein the Division Bench had elaborately set out the scope and the principles of law adumbrated under Order I Rule 8 C.P.C., as follows: “Order 1 Rule 8 is an exception to the general rule that all persons interested in a suit should be joined as parties to it so that the matters involved may be finally adjudicated upon and multiplicity of litigation in respect of the same matter may be avoided. The rule which is based upon reason and good policy provides where a number of persons have the same interest in the subject matter or the suit, one or more of them can, with the permission of the Court, sue or be sued on behalf of themselves and the others. The conditions that are to be satisfied for applicability of the rules are: (1) The parties must be numerous. But the rule does not fix any limit to number. The word numerous is not a term of art; nor is it synonymous with the word numberless or innumerable. It only means a group of persons such as would make it inconvenient for the plaintiffs to implead all of them either as plaintiffs or defendants individually. (2) The parties must have the same interest in the suit. The interest must be common between them all or they must have a common grievance which they seek to redress. In other words in a representative action it is essential that the class of persons on behalf of whom or against whom relief is sought should be clearly defined. (3) The Court's permission under the rule must be obtained. The Court should exercise its judicial discretion in granting permission to a person to sue in a representative capacity under the rule. The Court should be satisfied that there is community of interest as between the plaintiffs or the defendants, as the case may be, to justify the adoption of the procedure provided under the rule. However, it is not necessary that a formal order should be passed by the Court. From the circumstances of the case and from the fact that the Court had ordered publication of the notice it can be presumed that the Court had granted the necessary permission under Order 1 Rule 8. (4) Notice must be given to the parties to whom it is proposed to represent in the suit. Issue of a notice either privately or by publication on the persons concerned is an indispensable preliminary to the trial of the suit under Order 1 Rule 8. It is necessary that the plaintiff should give the names of persons whose addresses are ascertainable. If personal service is not practicable in respect of ascertained persons or if the persons are unascertainable then resort should be had to service of notice by publication. It is necessary that the plaintiff should give the names of persons whose addresses are ascertainable. If personal service is not practicable in respect of ascertained persons or if the persons are unascertainable then resort should be had to service of notice by publication. In such a case, the Court should see that they are published in such dailies that the persons interested are likely to read it, This is because any decision rendered in a suit filed with permission of the Court under Order 1 Rule 8 will be binding on persons who are not parties to the suit and they will not be in a position to contest the suit on a subsequent occasion as the earlier decision would operates as res judicate by virtue of Explanation 6 to section 11 of the Civil Procedure Code which provides that where persons litigate bonafide in respect of a public right or of a private right claimed in common for themselves and others, all persons interested in such right shall, for the purposes of this section, be deemed to claim under the persons so litigating”. Hence a heavy duty is cast on the Court to meticulously follow the procedure prescribed by Order 1 Rule 8 C.P.C. Even though a defendant against whom a decree is sought may not raise any such objection against the plaintiff (5) The provisions of Order 1 Rule 8 do not enjoin that the plaintiffs should obtain before hand the authority of those whom they seek to represent, the reason being that it will be open to all person having the same interest to get themselves impleaded and either support the plaintiff or oppose him in the suit. Similarly, it will not be open to the defendants to state that they do not seek to represent the class of persons against whom the suit is sought to be filed in a representative capacity. The above principles can be deduced from the following decisions. A.I.R. 1933 Privy Council 183; A.I.R. 1972 Ker 269; A.I.R. 1943 Mad 161; A.I.R. 1933 Lah 749; A.I.R. 1959 Bom 491; A.I.R. 1965 Ker 200; A.I.R. 1977 All 421. ... ... There may be some inter se dispute between the plaintiffs and their followers on the one side and certain group of residents of Chellam North and South Streets on the other. ... ... There may be some inter se dispute between the plaintiffs and their followers on the one side and certain group of residents of Chellam North and South Streets on the other. But that cannot in any way debar the plaintiffs from filing the suit with the leave of the Court under Order 1 Rule 8. What is necessary is that the plaintiffs should obtain the permission of the Court to institute the suit in a representative capacity under Order 1 Rule 8. The rules does not enjoin that the plaintiffs should obtain before hand the authority of those on whose behalf they seek to institute the suit with the leave of the Court under Order1 Rule 8. It is not the concern of the defendants whether the persons whom the plaintiffs seek to represent see eye to eye with the plaintiffs in the matter of the conduct of the suit. It will be open to any of the persons whom the plaintiffs seek to represent to get himself impleaded in the suit and get the suit decreed differently or even dismissed if, according to him, no relief as prayed for by the plaintiffs, should be granted by the Court. Therefore, apart from the fact that the plaintiffs need not be supported by the previous consent of all those persons whom they seek to represent as plaintiffs in the suit, the defendants have no locus standi to say that the plaintiffs are not competent to represent the others whom the seek to represent. A.I.R. 1921 Mad. 682 ; A.I.R. 1929 Mad. 44; ref. In A.I.R 1932 Bombay 65 it has been held that it is not permissible for a Court to dismiss a suit under Order 1 Rule 8 simply on the ground that some persons object to the plaintiffs carrying on the suit. ... ... Further, it is not for the defendants to object to the leave being granted to the plaintiffs to sue the defendants in a representative capacity. It has been held in 1913 I.L.R. 36 Madras. 418 thus: “A plaintiff may be allowed to sue certain defendants under section 30 C.P.C. Of 1882, as representing certain others in spite of the objection or refusal of the defendants on record to represent the others the consent of the defendants on record not being necessary”. ... ... It has been held in 1913 I.L.R. 36 Madras. 418 thus: “A plaintiff may be allowed to sue certain defendants under section 30 C.P.C. Of 1882, as representing certain others in spite of the objection or refusal of the defendants on record to represent the others the consent of the defendants on record not being necessary”. ... ... In this context, it is necessary to state that in a suit which is filed with the permission of Court under Order 1 Rule 8 no question of misjoinder or non-joinder of parties would arise. The very purpose of filing a suit under Order 1 Rule 8 C.P.C. is because it will be inconvenient to implead all the necessary parties to the suit. Once the necessary notice under Order 1 Rule 8 is published it will be open to the other parties to get themselves impleaded and either support the plaintiffs or oppose the relief claimed by the plaintiffs. Therefore, the finding of the trial Court on issue No.4 viz., that the suit is bad for non-joinder and misjoinder is equally erroneous and is therefore set aside.” 12. Therefore, the finding of the trial Court on issue No.4 viz., that the suit is bad for non-joinder and misjoinder is equally erroneous and is therefore set aside.” 12. Considering the position of law as regards the Order I Rule 8 C.P.C., as amply brought out by the Division Bench in the above cited decision, it is seen that once the Court had deemed it fit to take the application on file and issue notice to the defendants concerned as well as the objectors and the plaintiff also having effected notice, in respect of the same, by way of the paper publication, as provided under the law, it is found that the same itself would amount to presume that the Court had granted necessary permission under Order I Rule 8 C.P.C. If at all the objectors, to whom the notice had been sent, have any resistance to the above said application preferred by the plaintiff, at the most, they are entitled only to put-forth their objections with reference to the same and if they deemed it fit, as provided under Order I Rule 8 C.P.C., they can always apply to the Court concerned to be made as parties to the suit of the plaint and accordingly, get themselves impleaded and thereby, thereafter put-forth their respective cases in the suit and accordingly, it is found that thereafter, the Court below, after considering the rival contentions of the parties in respect of the above said issue, after framing necessary issues in the suit, should proceed to determine the same as well as the other issues and thereby, dispose of the suit. However, insofar as this case is concerned, the above said procedure contemplated in the law as well as outlined in the above cited decision, having not been followed, on the above said ground alone, it is seen that the impugned order is liable to be dismissed. 13. However, insofar as this case is concerned, the above said procedure contemplated in the law as well as outlined in the above cited decision, having not been followed, on the above said ground alone, it is seen that the impugned order is liable to be dismissed. 13. In the decision in Royal Villa Residents' Association vs. The Project Management Committee, reported in 2013 (4) CTC 205 , it has been held that even if the suit had been filed without complying with the provisions of Order I Rule 8 C.P.C., the only course available to the Court concerned is to frame necessary issues with reference to the same during the course of trial and determine the issue either way and on that ground, the Court would not be entitled to strike off the suit for non-compliance of the provision and this position of law has been outlined in the above cited decision in the following manner: “Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908), Order 1, Rule 8–Non compliance of provision – Striking out of Plaint–Whether there has been compliance of Order 1, Rule 8, to be decided by framing issues during trial–Plaint cannot be struck off in Revision for noncompliance of provision–Civil Revision Petition dismissed. Facts : Respondents herein filed Suit for injunction. Instant Revision has been preferred by Defendant in Suit for striking out of Plaint in Suit on account of non-compliance of Order 1, Rule 8 of CPC. Held : According to me, without going into the merits of the contentions raised by both the parties, at this stage, the suit cannot be struck down on the ground of non-compliance of Order 1 Rule 8 of Civil Procedure Code. To attract the provisions of Order 1 Rule 8 of Civil Procedure Code, the suit must have been filed in the representative capacity and admittedly, the suit was filed by the respondents representing the Project Management Committee, Kotturpruam Officers Cooperative Housing Society which is a registered body under the Societies Registration Act and where the Project Management Committee which is a part of the Officers Co-operative Housing Society can file a suit without complying with the provisions of order 1 Rule 8 of Civil Procedure Code can be decided only during trial by framing necessary issues to that effect. Therefore, at this stage, it cannot be stated that the suit filed by the respondents is not maintainable for non-compliance of Order 1 Rule 8 of Civil Procedure Code. Further, the Honourable Judge Mr. Justice P.Sadasivam, as he then was held in Kamaraj Bhavan, Lower Bazaar Road, uthagamandalam v. A.Rahim and 3 others, 1996-2-L.W 456(cited supra) held that the failure of the plaintiffs to obtain permission under Order 1 Rule 8 of Civil Procedure Code is only a procedural irregularity and the permission can be obtained even during the pendency of the appeal and in that reported case, permission was granted in the Second Appeal stage. Therefore, in my opinion, plaint cannot be struck off on the ground that the suit was not filed by complying with the provisions of Order 1 Rule 8 of Civil Procedure Code and in my opinion, the same has to be decided during trial by framing necessary issues. Hence, I do not find any merit in the revision Petition and the same is accordingly dismissed. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is dismissed. No costs. 14. The similar is the view expressed by this Court in the decision in Chennimalai Yarns Pvt., Limited vs. S.Chandrasekar, reported in 2005 (5) CTC 411 and the above said position of law is outlined as follows: “21. Order 1, Rule 8, C.P.C. is the enabling Rule, prescribing the condition to file the suit or to be sued in the Representative Capacity. When the permission has been granted, it becomes the duty of the Court to direct notice to be given to the opposite parties. It is contended that the requirements of Order 1, Rule 8, C.P.C. has not been complied with and that notice to other shareholders has not been issued. In support of this contention that no public notice was issued to the other shareholders, no material had been produced. In the absence of any material, it is not possible to accept the contention that necessary conditions of Order 1, Rule 8, C.P.C. was not complied with. The contention of the Revision Petitioners raising objection regarding the Representative Capacity of D-6 cannot be accepted. However, it is open to the parties to put-forth their objection at the time of adducing evidence.” 15. The contention of the Revision Petitioners raising objection regarding the Representative Capacity of D-6 cannot be accepted. However, it is open to the parties to put-forth their objection at the time of adducing evidence.” 15. Therefore, it could be gathered from the above cited decisions, if at all either the defendants or the objectors have any resistance or objection to the entitlement of the plaintiff to file the suit in the representative capacity, the defendants should put-forth their pleas in the written statement or in the counter and the objectors, after putting forth their objections, should apply to the Court to get themselves impleaded in the lis and also reiterating their objections with reference to the entitlement of the plaintiff to sue in the representative capacity and thereafter, the course open to the Court is to frame issues on that point and determine the same in accordance with law. 16. Instead of adhering to the above said principles of law, it is found that merely on the basis of the fact that the defendants have disputed the execution of the promissory note and the borrowal of the amount from the plaintiff and also claimed that the Marriage Hall had been constructed only on the basis of the contributions made by the contributors and that they are not the office bearers and the others are the office bearers, on that footing, it is seen that the Court below had dismissed the above said application. Not stopping there, the Court below had also consequently, dismissed the suit levied by the plaintiff. 17. When as per the decision in Royal Villa Residents' Association (cited supra), it is seen that following the decision in Kamaraj Bhavan, Lower Bazaar Road, uthagamandalam v. A.Rahim and 3 others, reported in 1996-2-L.W 456 (cited supra), it has been held that the failure of the plaintiff to obtain permission under Order I Rule 8 of the Civil Procedure Code is only a procedural irregularity and the permission can be obtained even during the pendency of the appeal and accordingly, when it is noted that in the above said case, permission had been granted to the concerned plaintiff at the second appeal stage, it is seen that the Court below had totally committed error in dismissing the above said application of the plaintiff and also consequently, dismissing the suit laid by the plaintiff. 18. 18. Furthermore, Mahalingam Asari, in whose favour, the defendants 1 to 3, for themselves and representatives of the Pappakudi Yadhava Community People, is stated to have executed the promissory note for Rs.2,00,000/-, it is found that the above said Mahalingam Asari has also levied the suit against the defendants, in O.S.No.16 of 2005, in the representative capacity and as similar to the present case, his application preferred under Order I Rule 8 C.P.C., having been dismissed by the Court on the similar lines, as above discussed, challenging the same, it is found that he had preferred C.R.P.No.1126 of 2007. 19. This Court, by order dated 31.08.2010, after considering the issues involved in the above said matter, noting that the remedy available to the objectors is only to get themselves impleaded in the main suit as provided under Order I Rule 8(3) C.P.C., accordingly, determined that the Court below has erroneously decided the merits of the suit in the application preferred under Order I Rule 8 C.P.C., and thereby, the impugned order of the Court below is liable to be set aside and consequently, allowed the civil revision petition. 20. In the light of the above discussions, it is found that the dismissal of the plaintiff's application, preferred under Order I Rule 8 C.P.C., by the Court below, without appreciating the scope and the principles of law governing Order I Rule 8 C.P.C., and furthermore, without any material on record, having chosen to disbelieve the case projected by the plaintiff in the main suit, by holding that the promissory note had not been executed for the benefit of the Yadhava Community People mainly on the averments contained in the counter of the defendants are found to have led to miscarriage of justice, when as above discussed, the only course available to the Court is, if the objectors deem it fit, to permit them to get themselves impleaded as parties in the suit and thereupon, after framing necessary issues in the suit with reference to the entitlement of the plaintiff in all aspects and based on the materials placed on record, should have proceeded to dispose of the matter. On the other hand, the decision of the Court below in erroneously dismissing the application preferred by the plaintiff under Order I Rule 8 C.P.C., is found to be not sustainable in the eyes of law. On the other hand, the decision of the Court below in erroneously dismissing the application preferred by the plaintiff under Order I Rule 8 C.P.C., is found to be not sustainable in the eyes of law. For the reasons afore stated, the impugned order is liable to be set aside. 21. Accordingly, the impugned order, dated 14.07.2006 passed in I.A.No.119 of 2005 in O.S.No.15 of 2005, on the file of the Court of the Court of the Sub Judge, Ambasamudram, is set aside and consequently, I.A.No.119 of 2005, preferred by the plaintiff, under Order I Rule 8 C.P.C., is hereby allowed and the Court below is directed to take into consideration the above said factors and accordingly, proceed with the matter in accordance with law. 22. Resultantly, the civil revision petition is allowed with costs.