ORDER : 1. This appeal under Section 100 of CPC is filed against the judgment and decree dated 21.08.2019 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Dharampuri, district Dhar in Civil Appeal No. 11-A/2015 arising out of the judgment and decree dated 15.10.2015 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Class-II, Dharampuri, District Dhar in Civil Suit No. 8-A/2014. 2. The brief facts of the case is that appellant/plaintiff filed a civil suit in representative capacity on the averments that there was a temple belonging to the followers of Jain Community at village Bikhrone. It was averred that the entrance gate of the aforesaid temple was towards southern direction and towards the eastern wall of the temple there was a public road, which was being used by the public at large. It was averred that the temple building was quite an old construction and as it was in a dilapidated state, the defendants had started renovation of the temple and that in that process they had started constructing a staircase towards the eastern wall of the temple on the public road, which was obstructing the use of the public road for the general public. The defendants filed their written statement and denied all the averments. 3. The trial Court framed the issues in the suit and on the basis of the pleadings of both the parties recorded the evidence of the parties and thereafter passed the judgment and decree dated 15.10.2015 whereby the suit filed by the plaintiff was dismissed. 4. The judgment and decree passed by the trial Court was assailed by the appellant along with co-plaintiffs before the lower appellate Court by filing first appeal under Section 96 of CPC which was registered as C.A. No. 11-A/2015. The learned first appellate Court also dismissed the appeal by affirming the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court. 5. Being aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed by the first appellate Court, the appellant/plaintiff filed the present second appeal and submitted that the Courts below have committed grave error of law and jurisdiction in dismissing the suit filed by the plaintiff despite having held that the construction of the staircase was being raised by the defendants on a public road. It is further submitted that the Courts below have committed grave illegality in not considering that a public road cannot be obstructed even by the municipal/local authorities in terms of the municipal laws. Hence, the judgment and decree passed by the Courts below are bad in law and prays for allowing the appeal by setting aside the impugned judgment and decree. 6. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the record. 7. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that appellant had filed a representative suit before the trial Court. Representative suit can be filed under Order 1 Rule 8 of CPC which reads as under: “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.” 8. Considering the trial Court record, it is found that according to the arguments of the learned counsel for the appellant, the suit was filed as representative suit, but they have no authority as per the procedure given under Order 1 Rule 8 of CPC. So, this suit was not maintainable as representative suit. According to the provision of Order 1 Rule 8 of CPC, plaintiff's suit cannot be treated as representative suit. Hence, they are not legally entitled to file suit as representative suit. On the other hand, it is found that Courts below have given concurrent finding regarding the disputed point. On perusal of the record, it is found that Courts below have not committed any error in rejecting the suit filed by the plaintiffs. 9. In view of the aforesaid discussions, I do not find any illegality or perversity in the judgment and decree and findings recorded by the Courts below and the reasons given by it for the same. On the other hand, the suit filed by the plaintiff is also not legally maintainable before the trial Court. 9. In view of the aforesaid discussions, I do not find any illegality or perversity in the judgment and decree and findings recorded by the Courts below and the reasons given by it for the same. On the other hand, the suit filed by the plaintiff is also not legally maintainable before the trial Court. Thus, affirming the same, the appeal does not involve any substantial question of law and is accordingly dismissed in limine.