JUDGMENT : 1. The present petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India is filed by the petitioner – original defendant No.1, assailing the validity of an order dated 27.2.2019 passed below application Exh.6 in Special Civil Suit No.87 of 2019 and consequently, prayed for setting aside the same and in the meantime, sought the interim relief. 2. The premise on which the present petition is brought before the Court is that respondent Nos.2 and 3 – original plaintiff Nos.2 and 3 claimed to have purchased the flats bearing Nos.A/11 and A/12 in the scheme known as ‘Bhavi Darshan Sankul’ situated on a land bearing Revenue Survey No.3, T.P.Scheme No.4, Original Plot Nos.33 and 34 and Final Plot No.41 admeasuring around 26,572 sq. mtrs. The respondent No.1 herein stated to be a power of attorney holder of respondent Nos.2 and 3 and in the same manner, the respondent No.4 – original plaintiff No.4 claimed to have purchased a flat bearing No.B/32 in the said scheme. 2.1 It is the case of the petitioner that the original plaintiffs, though having possessed only 3 flats, brought the suit in the court of learned Civil Judge, Surat being Special Civil Suit No.87 of 2019 with respect to entire scheme i.e. ‘Bhavi Darshan Sankul’ in a representative capacity. The essential relief which has been sought in the suit was with regard to the cancellation of partnership deed executed by and between the defendants inter-se over and above restoration of scheme named as ‘Bhavi Darshan Sankul’ and incidental other reliefs as well. 2.2 It is further the case of the petitioner that original plaintiffs – respondents herein along with the suit also moved an application under Order 1 Rule 8 of CPC and projected as if they are in a representative capacity and later on, the learned trial Judge on 27.2.2019 passed an order upon said application Exh.6 and accordingly, the original plaintiffs published a notice in local daily newspapers ‘Gujarat Mitra’ and ‘Gujarat Darpan’ on 6.3.2019 seeking other flat holders to be joined as plaintiffs in the aforesaid suit. To that effect, a pursis at Exh.14 was also given which is very much visible on the record. But then the plaintiffs made an attempt to project the suit being filed in a representative capacity and got an order on 27.2.2019 on an application filed under Order 1 Rule 8 of CPC. To that effect, a pursis at Exh.14 was also given which is very much visible on the record. But then the plaintiffs made an attempt to project the suit being filed in a representative capacity and got an order on 27.2.2019 on an application filed under Order 1 Rule 8 of CPC. Left with no other alternate, the petitioner – original defendant No.1 is constrained to file the present petition by invoking extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court for setting aside the aforesaid order dated 27.2.2019. 2.3 This petition was originally circulated on 16.4.2019, a copy of which was served upon Shri Viral Shah, learned advocate and upon his request, with broad consensus, the matter was kept on 25.4.2019 and after hearing, the Court was pleased to issue notice since other respondents were also required to be heard and thereafter, later on, on 17.6.2019, after by-parte hearing, the matter was admitted, made it returnable and interim relief sought was granted in terms of Para.7 (B) and (C). It was noticed that other respondents were served but, did not appear. Therefore, with a view to give adequate opportunity, the matter was admitted and with this background, the present proceedings was required to be heard at length and upon request of the learned advocates, the matter was put up for orders which can also be seen from even orders passed on Civil Application since both sides have requested to taken up main matter with Civil Application. 3. Shri I.H. Saiyed, learned Senior Advocate, assisted by Shri Y.H. Motiramai, learned advocate for the petitioner, has vehemently contended that the impugned order is passed without granting any opportunity to the parties to the proceedings. It has further been contended that on the day of presentation of application in the suit, without waiting, on the same day, the learned trial Judge was pleased to pass an order and, therefore, this is absolutely innocuous exercise undertaken by the trial court while passing the impugned order. Shri I.H. Saiyed, learned Senior Advocate, has submitted that bare reading of the plaint and the averments contained therein would clearly indicate that this suit is not of a representative capacity but, it is a suit aimed at thwarting the redevelopment project which has been undertaken and, as such, the suit has been filed with an oblique purpose. Shri I.H. Saiyed, learned Senior Advocate, has submitted that bare reading of the plaint and the averments contained therein would clearly indicate that this suit is not of a representative capacity but, it is a suit aimed at thwarting the redevelopment project which has been undertaken and, as such, the suit has been filed with an oblique purpose. It has further been contended that the title of the suit and the averments contained would clearly indicate that the learned trial Judge, before passing an order, ought to have examined the plaint and the document and having not done so, a serious error is committed and hence, the order in question deserves to be set aside. 3.1 Shri I.H.Saiyed, learned Senior Advocate, has submitted that had there been an intention of plaintiff to file the suit in a representative capacity, then other several flat holders could not have filed their individual suits, namely, Civil Suit Nos.64, 65 and 66 of 2019 and furthermore, no other individual has come forward to raise any grievance even after the public notice having been given. As a result of this, the impugned order is not sustainable. It has further been contended that even after joining here in the present proceedings, unconditionally those parties have withdrawn their individual suits and for that unconditional withdrawal, there is an order passed by the court below and the said withdrawal has taken place in Lok Adalat. A pursis to that effect is also attached to this petition. Shri I.H.Saiyed, learned Senior Advocate, has submitted that all these persons claiming to be the owners of the flats have their individual agenda and it can be seen that No.26, namely, Sajjanba Jhala, who sold her flat after filing the suit to one Shri Ramesh Patel, who is now joined and the said sale has taken place on 28.3.2019. For that, a separate petition is also filed. Be that as it may, some of the members i.e. plaintiffs are the family members and in fact, an impression is wrongly tried to be created that several individuals are interested in the proceedings. In fact, while passing the impugned order and while exercising the discretion under Order 1 Rule 8 of CPC, averments at length ought to have been gone into. In fact, while passing the impugned order and while exercising the discretion under Order 1 Rule 8 of CPC, averments at length ought to have been gone into. Just because the plaintiff has made the averments to the effect that there are approximately 50 to 100 members which would not change the colour of proceedings and as such, in the absence of any concrete material, the learned trial Judge ought not to have passed the impugned order on the very same day. It has further been contended that if a conjoint reading of individual prayers which have been made if to be analyzed, this proceeding will not partake the character of representative suit. On the contrary, these parties are not actually staying here. It has also been submitted that it was categorically assured that after redevelopment, they will be allotted their respective units or ready to give even the market price. In fact, according to Shri I.H.Saiyed, this is nothing but an attempt to stall the redevelopment, otherwise in a suit of 2019, the relief which has been sought is of 2011 i.e. agreement dated 30.3.2011 and in between, there are several attempts in the form of complaints which have been made by the plaintiffs. Therefore, at this belated stage, when an attempt has been made, it is obligatory on the part of learned trial Judge to examine, instead of passing the order straightway on the same day. In fact, the record indicates that they were prosecuting their parallel remedies for pursuing their individual rights. 3.2 Shri I.H. Saiyed, learned Senior Advocate, has submitted that simultaneously attempts have also been made to get the Court Commissioner appointed and to execute a videography and the spot verification so as to facilitate them to create an evidence. All these efforts ought to have been of relevant consideration and as such, the order in question is not just and proper. Shri I.H. Saiyed, learned Senior Advocate, has reiterated that the offer which was made to the plaintiffs is still subsisting and they are ready and willing to abide by the same. But to complicate the proceedings, by bringing all plaintiffs in the suit would dribble the very nature of the suit and the entire redevelopment process would be at peril. Only few persons are objecting to this process and, therefore, exparte order which has been passed is required to be set at naught. But to complicate the proceedings, by bringing all plaintiffs in the suit would dribble the very nature of the suit and the entire redevelopment process would be at peril. Only few persons are objecting to this process and, therefore, exparte order which has been passed is required to be set at naught. 4. Shri Percy Kavina, learned Senior Advocate, with Shri Darshan M. Varandani, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the contesting respondent, has vehemently opposed the petition, rather has submitted that this petition is required to be dismissed without going into merit only on one issue of non-joinder of necessary party. During the course of proceedings, several plaintiffs have already been joined and a convenient attempt is made by the petitioner herein to challenge the order without joining those persons who are very much now on record and are interested. As a result of this, on this count alone, the petition deserves to be dismissed. In fact, on 1.4.2019, applications Exh.26 and Exh.28 which were filed under Order 1 Rule 8 of CPC, the same came to be granted on 16.4.2019 and still, the cause title of the present proceedings does not tally with the main title of the suit. Despite this fact, having been well within the knowledge of the petitioner, an attempt is made to get the petition disposed of without making available every plaintiffs an opportunity to meet with the stand of the petitioner and, therefore, this attempt requires serious consideration to dismiss the petition. This proposition is abundantly clear, according to Shri Kavina, need no further elaboration. Shri Kavina, learned Senior Advocate, has further submitted that Order 1 Rule 8 of CPC has its own object underlying and that does not require elaborate adjudication. On the contrary, the averments contained in the plaint and the documents are sufficient enough to justify the discretion which has been exercised by the trial court. But that apart, this petition deserves to be dismissed only on solitary consideration of not joining the parties who are affected, though very much on record. 5. On the contrary, the averments contained in the plaint and the documents are sufficient enough to justify the discretion which has been exercised by the trial court. But that apart, this petition deserves to be dismissed only on solitary consideration of not joining the parties who are affected, though very much on record. 5. As against this, Shri Saiyed, learned Senior Advocate, has made an attempt to justify on the ground that when the petition was filed on 10.4.2019, the plaintiffs were not in large number and the said order of joining was passed on 16.4.2019, whereas on 17.6.2019 this petition is admitted for further consideration and, therefore, when the presentation of petition took place, the persons were not ordered to be joined in the suit. Hence, it is not that much significant that all will have to be joined and as such, this defect cannot be said to be fatal in any manner. 6. To this submission, Shri Kavina, learned Senior Advocate, has submitted that chronology of event if to be looked into, even at a subsequent point of time also, no serious attempt was made to join them in the present petition and, therefore, when the Court hears the matter finally upon the request of learned advocates, this defect is still persisting. As a result of this, the petition deserves to be dismissed. 7. Having heard the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties and having gone through the material on record which has been brought to the notice of this Court, though the petition is attached with several documents, the center of controversy is in a narrow compass and, therefore, few circumstances which are very much visible on the record, are not possible to be unnoticed by this Court. (1) The plaint which has been attached to the present petition from Page-17 of petition compilation onwards if to be looked into, in no uncertain terms, at several points a reflection is given that there are more interested persons than only the plaintiffs. In fact, a conjoint reading of averments contained in Para.4 and 5 are clearly suggesting the manner and method in which the suit has been brought before the Court and the manner and method in which the cause of action has arisen. In fact, a conjoint reading of averments contained in Para.4 and 5 are clearly suggesting the manner and method in which the suit has been brought before the Court and the manner and method in which the cause of action has arisen. Even in the relief clause of the suit, there appears to be a clear indication that along with the challenge to document dated 30.3.2011, the relief Nos.3, 4 and 5 and subsequent are clearly suggesting that suit has been brought in a conjoint manner for and on behalf of several persons and for which, an application under Order 1 Rule 8 of CPC has been submitted. (2) From the averments contained in application Exh.6, it also clearly suggesting in Para.1 as well as in Para.2 that this main suit has been brought in a representative capacity and intention is very much made it clear by making several specific averments and this application and the averments of the plaint have persuaded the trial court to pass an order on this application Exh.6. The order which is visible on record at page-16 is clearly suggesting that while exercising the discretion, the trial court has, prima facie, found from the material i.e. plaint as well as documents attached to it along with the averments contained in the application that there is an involvement of interest more in numbers than the plaintiffs, who brought the suit. It was also clearly found from the averments of the plaint that since large number of persons’ interest is involved, in compliance of Order 1 Rule 8 of CPC, an adequate appropriate opportunity deserves to be granted. As a result of this, the order came to be passed on 27.2.2019. (3) It further appears that no doubt, the order appears to have been passed on the same day, but it cannot be said in any manner that the same is passed without any application of mind, particularly when a clear direction is given to closely conformity with the provision of Order 1 Rule 8 of CPC and necessary steps will have to be taken and as such, this order impugned is not possible to be construed as passed without application of mind. On the contrary, it suggests detailed compliance which has been reflecting at several places, is taken care of by the trial court. 8. On the contrary, it suggests detailed compliance which has been reflecting at several places, is taken care of by the trial court. 8. Now to examine the validity of an order from perspective of provision contained in Order 1 Rule 8 of CPC. It clearly prescribes that when there are numerous persons having the same interest in one suit, the Court shall consider such request of the plaintiff and the procedure is set up under Order 1 Rule 8 of CPC as to how the notices to be given. For perusal of this provision, even explanation attached to the same is also worth to be taken care of which clearly suggests that there must be same interest which may not have been the same cause of action and, therefore, what has been prescribed in this provision is that if there are numerous persons having the same interest, then upon compliance of procedure set up in the provision, the suit can be brought in the representative capacity. May be that they may not have the same cause of action. For immediate perusal, the relevant abstract of Order 1 Rule 8 of CPC with explanation is reproduced hereinafter : “[1. Who may be joined as plaintiffs All persons may be joined in one suit as plaintiffs where-- (a) any right to relief in respect of, or arising out of, the same act or transaction or series of acts or transactions is alleged to exist in such persons, whether jointly, severally or in the alternative; and (b) if such persons brought separate suits, any common question of law or fact would arise.] 2. xxx xxx xxx 3. xxx xxx xxx 4. xxx xxx xxx 5. xxx xxx xxx 6. xxx xxx xxx 7. xxx xxx xxx 8. One person may sue or defend on behalf of all in same interest (1) Where there are numerous persons having the same interest in one suit,-- (a) one or more of such persons may, with the permission of the Court, sue or be sued, or may defend such suit, on behalf of, or for the benefit of, all persons so interested; (b) the Court may direct that one or more of such persons may sue or be sued, or may defend such suit, on behalf of, or for the benefit of, all persons so interested. (2) The Court shall, in every case where a permission or direction is given under sub-rule (1), at the plaintiff's expense, give notice of the institution of the suit to all persons so interested, either by personal service, or, where, by reason of the number of persons or any other cause, such service is not reasonably practicable, by public advertisement, as the Court in each case may direct. (3) Any person on whose behalf, or for whose benefit, a suit is instituted, or defended, under sub-rule (1), may apply to the Court to be made a party to such suit. (4) No part of the claim in any such suit shall be abandoned under sub-rule (1), and no such suit shall be withdrawn under sub-rule (3), of rule 1 of Order XXIII, and no agreement, compromise or satisfaction shall be recorded in any such suit under rule 3 of that Order, unless the Court has given, at the plaintiff's expense, notice to all persons so interested in the manner specified in sub-rule (2). (5) Where any person suing or defending in any such suit does not proceed with due diligence in the suit or defence, the Court may substitute in his place any other person having the same interest in the suit. (6) A decree passed in a suit under this rule shall be binding on all persons on whose behalf, or for whose benefit, the suit is instituted, or defended, as the case may be. Explanation.-- For the purpose of determining whether the persons who sue or are sued, or defend, have the same interest in one suit, it is not necessary to establish that such persons have the same cause of action as the persons on whose behalf, or for whose benefit, they sue or are sued, or defend the suit, as the case may be.]” 9. From the aforesaid provision, it appears that when this procedure set up in the provision is satisfying the requirements. From attached documents along with the plaint, it is not possible to construe by this Court that any error is committed by the trial court. 10. From the aforesaid provision, it appears that when this procedure set up in the provision is satisfying the requirements. From attached documents along with the plaint, it is not possible to construe by this Court that any error is committed by the trial court. 10. Additionally, it further appears from the record that several persons have already been joined in the proceedings by-now and undisputedly, these persons who have been joined, have not been brought before the Court in the present petition and, therefore, to some extent, Shri Kavina, learned Senior Advocate, is justified in pointing out the defect which has so far not been cleared by the petitioner. The sequence of events which took place and which has been enlisted in the affidavit-in-reply filed on behalf of respondent Nos.1 to 4 herein, is clearly indicating that on 16.4.2019, 17 persons have already been permitted to be joined as a party to the suit as plaintiff Nos.5 to 15 and to that effect, an order below Exh.26 and Exh.28 has already been passed on 16.4.2019. As a result of this, when several persons have already been joined as plaintiffs in the proceedings, there is hardly any reason now to entertain the present petition. For two reasons that more number of plaintiffs have already been brought on the record which is now satisfying the object of Order 1 Rule 8 of CPC and, as such, challenge to the said order is diluted by-now and further, a clear defect is very much visible in the present petition that though they were already joined in the suit, are not brought before this Court in the present petition even after the Rule having been issued by this Court. As a result of this, this is the state of affairs of the present petition which requires no interference in extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court. 11. It further appears from the record that a serious grievance was voiced out during the course of hearing by Shri Saiyed, learned Senior Advocate, that some of the persons have already prosecuted their remedy for claiming individual rights and they have already withdrawn their individual proceedings and, therefore, the attempt which has been made may not be encouraged. 12. 11. It further appears from the record that a serious grievance was voiced out during the course of hearing by Shri Saiyed, learned Senior Advocate, that some of the persons have already prosecuted their remedy for claiming individual rights and they have already withdrawn their individual proceedings and, therefore, the attempt which has been made may not be encouraged. 12. To this submission, a perusal of document if to be looked into, it suggests that few proceedings in the form of Regular Civil Suit No.64 of 2019, then Regular Civil Suit No.65 of 2019 as well as Regular Civil Suit No.66 of 2019 are the suits no doubt appear to be filed but by the family members. But apart from that, a perusal of the withdrawal note which is very much attached to the petition submitted on record at page-119, a pursis at Exh.13 dated 20.4.2019 is clearly suggesting that with a view to join in present suit i.e. Special Civil Suit No.87 of 2019, they are withdrawing their suit and the last line is indicating that they have already appeared in the present suit and, therefore, they wanted to withdraw their Regular Civil Suit No.64 of 2019 and other similar suits mentioned above and, as such, it is not that the said suit has been withdrawn to indicate that they are not interested at all. But, in fact, they have shown their willingness in the present proceedings as well and, therefore, said submission is not possible to be accepted by this Court. In fact, from the record, it appears that large number of persons are very much interested in the present proceedings and their interest prima facie is reflecting to have been taken care of in the present proceedings but on merit of plaint court is not expressing any opinion. There is no earthly reason why to dismiss the application under Order 1 Rule 8 of CPC submitted by the original plaintiff and, therefore, in considered opinion of this Court, conjoint reading of every circumstance which is visible on record is indicating that there is no perversity or illegality in the order which is impugned in the petition. 13. At this stage, Shri Saiyed, learned Senior Advocate, has pressed into service a decision of the Apex Court reported in (1998) 5 SCC 513 and vehemently aggrieved about the discretion exercised by the trial court. 13. At this stage, Shri Saiyed, learned Senior Advocate, has pressed into service a decision of the Apex Court reported in (1998) 5 SCC 513 and vehemently aggrieved about the discretion exercised by the trial court. By referring to Para.25, 26 and 28 of the said decision, a judicial discipline concept is tried to be pressed into service and an attempt is made after passing of an order by this Court on 9.5.2019, practically the learned Judge has maintained the same tenor. But that is with respect to an application Exh.15 which was directed to be reheard and not the present application Exh.6 under Order 1 Rule 8 of CPC which has nothing to do with this order and, therefore, ex-facie in the present petition, the said judgment is of no avail or assistance to the petitioner. Apart from that, the emphasis which has been tried to be raised about all bias and egoistic judicial obstinacy, the Court found no such averment in any corner of the petition and in the absence of any proper pleadings and in the absence of any such allegation leveled in the petition in black and white, the Court would not like to allow the petitioner to go beyond the pleadings. As a result of this, looking to the significance of proper pleadings in the present proceedings, the Court is of the opinion that this judgment will not be of any assistance to the petitioner. Had there been any proper pleadings detailed in nature, the Court would have probably considered. But, without such proper pleadings, the Court would not like to infer anything as suggested by the learned advocate for the petitioner nor would like to cast even indirectly any aspersion about the discretion which has been exercised by the court below. That being so, the petition found to be devoid of any merit, deserves to be dismissed. 14. But, without such proper pleadings, the Court would not like to infer anything as suggested by the learned advocate for the petitioner nor would like to cast even indirectly any aspersion about the discretion which has been exercised by the court below. That being so, the petition found to be devoid of any merit, deserves to be dismissed. 14. Additionally, the Court is also of the opinion that this petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India and looking to the scope enlisted by the Apex Court time and again on such exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction, the Court is additionally of the opinion that combined reading of chain of events in the proceedings is sufficient enough that discretion which has been exercised by the court below does not call for any interference since the Court has applied its mind on the basis of available record and when that be so, in the absence of any perversity, this Court is not inclined to substitute the discretion which has been exercised by the court below. The scope of Article 227 of the Constitution of India is well defined by the Apex Court in case of Sameer Suresh Gupta v. Rahul Kumar Agarwal, (2013) 9 SCC 374 . 15. While parting with the present order, it is made clear that any of the observations made in the present proceedings will not be influenced as the same are encircling around deciding the validity of an order dated 27.2.2019 at Exh.6 only. 16. Since the main proceeding is centering around several parties to the proceedings, it would be open for both the sides to make a request to the learned trial Judge to expedite the adjudicating process of the suit in question. 17. With these observations, the present petition stands dismissed with no order as to costs. Rule is discharged. Interim relief, if any, granted earlier stands vacated. 18. In view of the order passed in the main petition, no order is required to be passed separately in the civil application and is accordingly dismissed. Interim relief, if any, granted earlier stands vacated.