JUDGMENT
S.C. Mohapatra, J.
1. Refusal of prayer of petitioners to be added as parties to the suit is grievance of petitioners in this Civil Revision.
2. When the Civil Revision was listed for admission on 28-11-1990, I found that refusal of prayer to be added as parties in the impugned order was not correct. Accordingly, I had set aside the order directing trial Court to reconsider the application. Since I did not hear plaintiffs at that stage. I gave them liberty to approach this Court for recalling that order. On that basis, plaintiffs filed the petition. Heard. Order dated 28-11-1990 is recalled.
3. While recalling the order, I heard learned counsels for both parties on merits of the Civil Revision.
4. Claiming to be bhag tenant in respect of the suit land plaintiff filed the suit against the State of Orissa for declaration that the acquisition proceeding in respect of the suit land is without jurisdiction and the land under which acquisition has been treated as gochar though the same is not fit for the purpose. Since land was treated as gochar, it had communal character. Accordingly, defendant Nos. 3 and 5 were made parties to represent the villagers under Order 1, Rule 8, CPC, whose interest is likely to be affected in case the suit is to be decreed. On publication of notification under Order 1, Rule 8, CPC, petitioners came forward to be added as parties. Such application being rejected, this civil revision was filed.
5. There is no dispute that defendants are the villagers. In the application under Order 1, Rule 8, CPC, each member of the village including the petitioners are sought to be defended being represented by defendant Nos. 3 and 5, where a person does not want to be represented by another but wants to defend himself, he cannot be prohibited from contesting the suit to guard his own interest. Plaintiff does not state that he does not want to affect right of petitioners in any manner. Accordingly petitioners who claim to have interest in the land cannot be compelled to be represented by the persons chosen by plaintiff to represent them. They have a right to defend themselves not being represented by the other defendants added. Other villagers who do not come forward to be added, however, would continue to be represented since despite notice they do not want to defend their own interest personally.
6. It is stated by Mr. Barik that the petitioners cannot expand the nature and scope of the suit. Once a person sought to be defended by representation, is allowed to be made party, he can raise all issues for dismissal of the suit. Accordingly, having filed a suit under Order 1, Rule 8, CPC, it is open to the newly added parties to all objections against the relief claimed by the plaintiff.
7. Civil Revision is allowed. Impugned order is set aside. No costs.