ORDER : This second appeal under Section 100 of CPC has been filed against the judgment and decree dated 14.10.2016 passed by First Additional District Judge, Ashoknagar in Civil Appeal No.1-A/2016, by which judgment and decree dated 14.09.2015 passed by Fourth Civil Judge, Class-II, Ashoknagar in RCSA No.8-A/2014 has been reversed. 2. The appellants are the plaintiffs who have lost their case from the court below. 3. By order dated 16.03.2017, appeal has been admitted on following substantial question of law: "Whether the first appellate Court erred in reversing the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court ignoring the pleadings raised by the appellants/plaintiffs in the plaint wherein the plaintiffs have specifically pleaded about the factum of ownership and possession of the suit property exclusively vested in the State Government ?" 4. The facts necessary for disposal of present appeal, in short, are that plaintiffs filed a suit in representative capacity for declaration of title, permanent injunction, as well as for removal of encroachment. It is the case of plaintiffs that survey Nos. 607, 610, 609, 606, 593, 605, 627, total area 2.155 hectares situated in Village - Koharwas, Tahsil - Isagarh, Distrtict - Ashoknagar is in the ownership and possession of the State Government. Aforesaid land is being used by plaintiffs as well as all the villagers. There are pits in survey No. 607, which is being used by plaintiffs and villagers for dumping their cow dung, waste material, etc.. Graveyard is situated on survey No. 610, which is being used by plaintiffs as well as villagers for cremation purposes. Government Well is situated in Survey No. 609 which is being used by plaintiffs and the villagers for fetching water for their personal use as well as for use of their cattle. Government pond is situated on Survey No. 606. On the northern side of Survey No. 606, there is a public way, and one government hand pump has been installed adjoining to Survey No. 605. One Well and platform of Heeraman Baba are situated by the side of the hand pump. Villagers as well as the plaintiffs are using the Well, hand pump, as well as the pond for their cattle, and they also offer prayer to Heeraman Baba. There is a government public road on Survey No. 593 going from Village - Banora to Village - Koharwas. Villagers as well as the plaintiffs are using the Well, hand pump, as well as the pond for their cattle, and they also offer prayer to Heeraman Baba. There is a government public road on Survey No. 593 going from Village - Banora to Village - Koharwas. Said public way is being used by villagers as well as by the plaintiffs for transporting their agricultural produce, for plying their vehicles, as well as for going from one place to another by walking. Public road situated on Survey No. 593 is being used by plaintiffs as well as by the general public for approaching the government pond, Well, hand pump situated in Survey No. 606. A public way going from Village - Koharwas to Village - Singpur is situated on Survey No. 627. This road is also being used by the villagers and plaintiffs for approaching the government pond. Similarly, a government public way is situated on Survey No. 727 which is being used by plaintiffs and the villagers. Aforesaid lands are in the ownership and possession of State Government, and for the last several decades, they are being used by the general public and plaintiffs. No one has any right or title over even a single piece of aforesaid land. It was pleaded that defendants No. 1 to 3, who are members of same family, have encroached upon 40x25 sq. ft. of land situated on Survey No. 606, which is adjoining to government pond, and has constructed a house. The same has been shown as A, B, C, D in the plaint map. They also tie their cattle and have put stones, etc., and have also constructed a fencing. Similarly, defendants No. 1 to 3 have also constructed a garage of 45x45 sq. ft. over Survey No. 607 without any authority. Similarly, defendants No. 1 to 3 have also encroached upon land belonging to graveyard situated on Survey No. 610 by constructing a fencing. Defendants No. 1 to 3 have also blocked the drain, as a result, water gets stagnated on Banora - Koharwas public road. Defendants No. 1 to 3 have also blocked the public way situated on Survey No. 605 which goes towards the government pond. Defendants No. 1 to 3 have also blocked the drain, as a result, water gets stagnated on Banora - Koharwas public road. Defendants No. 1 to 3 have also blocked the public way situated on Survey No. 605 which goes towards the government pond. Defendants No. 1 to 3 have also encroached upon the area shown as M, N, C in the plaint map and they have also constructed the fencing and have deprived the plaintiffs and villagers from using the public road. It was further pleaded that in spite of the direction given by Tahsildar, defendants No. 1 to 3 have encroached upon the government land by constructing house, garage, by covering the area by constructing fencing, as well as by tying their cattle, etc.. Thus, suit was filed for declaration that the suit land is in the ownership and possession of State Government and it is available for the use of plaintiffs and other villagers. It was also prayed that construction raised by defendants No. 1 to 3 on the disputed property be removed, and public ways may be made available to the general public and plaintiffs for its use and a permanent injunction was also sought that defendants No. 1 to 3 be also restrained from raising any construction or encroaching upon the government land. 5. Defendants filed their written statement and admitted that land in dispute is a government land. It was claimed that since the land in dispute is a government land, therefore, plaintiffs have no right or title to use the same without the permission of the State Government. No notice was given to the State Government under Section 80 of CPC, therefore, the suit is not maintainable. Plaintiffs have no right or title over the government land bearing Survey Nos. 607, 610, 609, 606, 605, 593, 627, 727. It was once again specifically pleaded in written statement that the disputed lands are government land and without the permission of State Government, plaintiffs cannot have any right or title over the same. It was further pleaded by defendants No. 1 to 3 that they have not encroached upon any part of Survey No. 606, and the plaint map has been wrongly shown. The allegations of encroachment done by defendants No. 1 to 3 over remaining part of disputed land was also denied. It was further pleaded by defendants No. 1 to 3 that they have not encroached upon any part of Survey No. 606, and the plaint map has been wrongly shown. The allegations of encroachment done by defendants No. 1 to 3 over remaining part of disputed land was also denied. It was also denied that defendants No. 1 to 3 have ever blocked the public way. It was pleaded that plaintiffs have falsely made allegations out of political vengeance. It was claimed that Survey No. 608/1 area 0.026 hectare is the private property of defendant Dashrath Singh, and on the said land, his house and garage are situated. Similarly, Survey No. 608/2 area 0.026 hectare is in the ownership of Malkhan Singh over which house and garage have been constructed. Thus, it was the case of defendants that house and garage are situated over private land, and not over government land. One civil suit No. 39A/2013 is also pending in the Court of Second Civil Judge, Class II, Ashoknagar, in which plaintiffs have also moved an application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC for impleading them as defendant, which was rejected by order dated 23.08.2013. The suit has not been properly valued. 6. Trial Court, after framing issues and recording evidence, decreed the suit, and it was held that property in dispute is in the ownership and possession of the State and defendants were restrained from interfering in the peaceful enjoyment of the disputed property by the plaintiffs. 7. Being aggrieved by judgment and decree passed by the trial Court, defendants preferred an appeal which was allowed by judgment and decree dated 14th of October, 2016. It was held by the appellate Court that although the trial Court has held that State Government is the owner and in possession of the disputed property, but in the second part of the decree has also restrained the defendants from interfering with the peaceful enjoyment of the land by plaintiffs. It was observed that once the State was also impleaded as defendants, then second part of decree has also been issued against the State Government, which is not permissible. The appellate Court has also held that suit against the State Government was not maintainable in absence of notice under Section 80 of CPC. It was observed that once the State was also impleaded as defendants, then second part of decree has also been issued against the State Government, which is not permissible. The appellate Court has also held that suit against the State Government was not maintainable in absence of notice under Section 80 of CPC. It was also held that if somebody has encroached upon the property belonging to the State Government, then State Government has authority under Section 248 of M.P.L.R. Code to remove the encroachment. It was also held that since the suit was filed in the representative capacity, therefore, it was obligatory on the part of plaintiffs to obtain a written consent from the villagers, but no such authority letter was produced. 8. Challenging the judgment and decree passed by appellate Court, it is submitted by counsel for appellants that appellants had filed an application under Order 1 Rule 8 CPC. Said application was allowed by order dated 18.09.2014, and plaintiffs/appellants were permitted to file suit in the representative capacity. It is further submitted that since no relief was claimed against the State Government, therefore, no notice under Section 80 of CPC was required before maintaining a suit against the State. So far as observation made by appellate Court with regard to some discrepancy in the decree which has been passed by the trial Court is concerned, it is submitted by counsel for appellants that in case if appellate Court was of the view that the decree which has been passed by the trial Court was misdescribed, then it had full authority and power to correct the decree, but should not have set aside the decree in toto. It is further submitted that it is undisputed fact that disputed property is a government land and it was categorically admitted by defendants/respondents also in their written statement, and thus, the Court below should not have ignored such an admission. It is further submitted that on multiple occasions, actions were taken by the State authorities for removal of encroachment, and orders were also passed. 9. Per contra, appeal is vehemently opposed by counsel for respondents. It is submitted that since no notice was issued by the appellants to the State Government, therefore, suit against the State Government was not maintainable. 10. Heard counsel for parties. 11. 9. Per contra, appeal is vehemently opposed by counsel for respondents. It is submitted that since no notice was issued by the appellants to the State Government, therefore, suit against the State Government was not maintainable. 10. Heard counsel for parties. 11. The undisputed fact is that it is the claim of plaintiffs that disputed property is government land, and this fact has also been admitted by defendants very categorically in their written statement. Therefore, it is held that disputed property is a government land. 12. So far as non-issuance of notice under Section 80 of CPC to State Government is concerned, it is suffice to mention here that under the facts and circumstances of the case, issuance of notice under Section 80 of CPC was not necessary. The purpose of issuing notice to the State Government under Section 80 of CPC is to give an opportunity to the State/State authorities to redress the grievance of the plaintiffs and as the suit was filed for declaration of suit property as a government land, as well as for removal of encroachment done by defendants No. 1 to 3, no relief was claimed against the State Government requiring the redressal of grievance of plaintiffs. Plaintiffs have also filed various orders to show that an order of removal of encroachment was passed by State authorities on multiple occasions. 13. Since no relief was claimed against the State Government and in fact suit was filed for protection of the property of the State Government by getting the encroachment done by defendants No. 1 to 3 removed from the said property, and furthermore, the State Government has never raised an objection with regard to non-issuance of notice under Section 80 of CPC, under these circumstances, this Court is of considered opinion that even if no notice was given to State Government before institution of suit, still in the facts and circumstances of the case, the suit would not fail as notice under Section 80 of CPC was not required. 14. So far as findings recorded by appellate Court that plaintiffs should have obtained a written consent from the villagers is concerned, same is misconceived. 15. Order 1 Rule 8 CPC reads as under:- "[8. 14. So far as findings recorded by appellate Court that plaintiffs should have obtained a written consent from the villagers is concerned, same is misconceived. 15. Order 1 Rule 8 CPC 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. (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. (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 person on whose behalf, or for whose benefit, they sue or are sued, or defend the suit, as the case may be.] [8A. Power of Court to permit a person or body of persons to present opinion or to take part in the proceedings. - While trying a suit, the Court may, if satisfied that a person or body of persons is interested in any question of law which is directly and substantially in issue in the suit and that it is necessary in the public interest to allow that person or body of persons to present his or its opinion on that question of law, permit that person or body of persons to present such opinion and to take such part in the proceedings of the suit as the Court may specify.]" 16. Plaintiffs had filed an application under Order 1 Rule 8 CPC along with the plaint. Trial Court considered said application, and by order dated 18.09.2014, held that land in dispute appears to be government land which must have been used by the villagers for the last several years. Even after going through the documents, which was filed along with plaint, it was found that even revenue Courts have passed an order of removal of encroachment against the defendants, and accordingly, it was held by the trial Court that plaintiffs have filed the suit in the representative capacity to protect the interest of the villagers, and accordingly, permission was granted to plaintiffs to file the suit in representative capacity for the benefits of the villagers also. Notice to the general public was also directed to be issued. None of the villagers has ever appeared before the trial Court and had ever moved any application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC seeking his impleadment in order to object/oppose the suit. Filing of a written consent from all the villagers to maintain a suit in representative capacity is not the requirement of law. 17. None of the villagers has ever appeared before the trial Court and had ever moved any application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC seeking his impleadment in order to object/oppose the suit. Filing of a written consent from all the villagers to maintain a suit in representative capacity is not the requirement of law. 17. As already pointed out, no one appeared before the trial Court to object to the continuation of suit in representative capacity. Order 1 Rule 8 CPC would apply where the parties are numerous having same interest, and necessary permission of the Court is obtained and notice under Section 2 of Rule 8 of Order 1 CPC is issued to the general public. All these conditions were satisfied by appellants/plaintiffs, and thus, reversal of the judgment passed by the trial Court on the ground that written permission from all the villagers was not obtained is misconceived as it was neither necessary nor vitiates filing of the suit in representative capacity. 18. Defendants have also admitted that disputed property is a government land. Thus, trial Court has rightly passed a decree that disputed property is a government land. Entire difficulty arises out of second part of the decree, which reads as under:- Since the State Government was also one of the defendants, then it can also be interpreted that the trial Court has also restrained the State Government from interfering with the peaceful enjoyment of the land by the plaintiffs. 19. Without entering into controversy as to whether second part of the decree, which was drawn by the trial Court was in accordance with law or not, it is suffice to mention here that the appellate Court also exercises the same power which are exercised by the trial Court, and appellate Court has the authority/jurisdiction to modify or correct the decree. If the appellate Court was of the view that second part of the decree has not been properly drawn, then instead of setting aside the decree, should have corrected it. If the appellate Court was of the view that second part of the decree has not been properly drawn, then instead of setting aside the decree, should have corrected it. Even this Court is of considered opinion that the manner in which second part of decree has been drawn, may create some confusion and accordingly, second part of the decree is modified, and in place of the second part of the decree which has been drawn by the trial Court, it is directed that:- (i) Defendants No. 1 to 3 are hereby restrained from peaceful enjoyment of the land in dispute by plaintiffs and general public and they shall not create any obstruction and public road, which is being used by plaintiffs and general public, shall not be blocked. 20. In view of aforementioned observation, the substantial question of law is answered in affirmative. 21. Accordingly, judgment and decree dated 14.10.2016, passed by First Additional District Judge, Ashoknagar in Civil Appeal No.1-A/2016, is set aside, and judgment and decree dated 14.09.2015, passed by Fourth Civil Judge, Class-II, Ashoknagar in RCSA No.8-A/2014, is affirmed with the modification as mentioned in the previous paragraph. 22. Appeal succeeds and is hereby allowed. 23. Let a decree be drawn accordingly.