***

SATYEN VAIDYA, J. –

By way of instant petition, petitioners have assailed order dated 01.01.2016 passed by learned Civil Judge (Jr. Divn.), Bilaspur in CMA No. 169-6 of 2015 in Civil Suit No. 146-1 of 2015/1987, whereby their applications under Order 1 Rule 10 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short, ‘the Code’) have been dismissed.

2. The petitioners have contended that they were permitted to seek their impleadment in Civil Suit No.117/1/2009/87 pending before the learned Civil Judge (Jr. Division), Bilaspur vide order dated 29.6.2015 passed in CWP No. 6819 of 2014. Though, the prayer of the petitioners was innocuous, yet it was rejected on hypertechnical grounds. It has also been submitted that the interest of plaintiffs in above noted civil suit and interest of the petitioners herein was identical and the petitioners are also entitled to the same relief as claimed by the plaintiffs. It is further submitted that the prayer of the petitioners, if allowed, will not prejudice anyone and even the plaint is not required to be amended.

3. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the records of the case carefully.

4. It is revealed from the impugned order that learned Civil Judge (Jr. Divn.), Bilaspur had decided 19 (Nineteen) applications for impleadment of parties under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC by a common order. 19 separate individuals, who have now joined as petitioners in the instant petition, had filed separate applications. They had approached learned trial court with their individual grievances. Though their applications were decided by a common order, the petitioners cannot maintain a single petition to assail such order.

5. Even otherwise, I have not found any illegality or impropriety in the impugned order. The impugned order also cannot be said to be without jurisdiction.

6. The petitioners had filed applications for their impleadment as plaintiffs. They had not raised any grievance that the plaintiffs in the suit were not proceeding with due diligence in the suit and required substitution. The case of petitioners was that they had same interest in the subject matter of the suit as was claimed by the plaintiffs, hence they were also required to be impleaded as plaintiffs. Non-applicants had opposed the prayer of the petitioners for impleadment on the ground that the conduct of petitioners was against the interest of plaintiffs. However, petitioners denied such assertion of non-applicants/plaintiffs by filing a rejoinder to their reply.

7. The suit has been filed in representative capacity by plaintiffs. The decree in the suit will be binding on all persons on whose behalf or for whose benefit the suit is instituted. Petitioners, by way of their applications for impleadment, had proclaimed the same interest in the suit as plaintiffs have. The suit having been filed in the representative capacity, a decree passed therein will be for the benefit of the petitioners also. In such view of the matter, their impleadment as plaintiffs is not warranted.

8. Thus, no interference is required in the impugned order. The petition is accordingly dismissed, so also the pending application(s) if any.

Petition dismissed.

********