ORDER
Bellie, J.
1. This civil revision petition is filed against an order passed allowing an application filed by the plaintiffs under Order 1, Rule 8, C.P.C., for permission to sue on behalf of themselves and on behalf of other tax payers.
2. The plaintiffs’ case is that there are about 5000 house tax payers in Shencottah Municipality. The first defendant Municipality has for the two half years of 1990-91 and the first half year of 1991-92 enhanced the house tax for all the houses in the municipality without any basis and arbitrarily. The defendants have levied and collected enhanced tax against the judgment of the Supreme Court in Gundur Municipality v. Gundur Municipal Tax Payers Association and also against Tamil Nadu Act 35 of 1990, from the second half year of 1987-88. The plaintiffs have prayed for a declaration that the defendants have no right to levy enhanced tax from the first half year of 1990-91 and for injunction restraining them from collecting such enhanced tax. They have also prayed for return of the enhanced tax so collected from the second half year of 1987-88 with interest at 12% per annum.
3. The plaintiffs filed an application alleging that the plaintiffs and other house tax payers in Shencottah Municipality have same interest and therefore the plaintiffs may be permitted to sue the defendants on behalf of themselves’ and also as representatives of other house tax payers. This application was objected to by the defendants contending that there is no case for invoking the provisions of Order 1, Rule 8, C.P.C. and therefore the plaintiffs cannot sue the defendants in a representative capacity.
4. The trial court held that the plaintiffs and other house tax payers in Shencottah Municipality have same grievance and interest and therefore the plaintiffs can be permitted to file the suit in a representative capacity, and accordingly it ordered. Against this order the civil revision petition has been filed by the first defendant Municipality and the third defendant-its Officer.
5. It is contended on behalf of the revision petitioners-defendants that the tax has been levied at enhanced rate in respect of individual houses and if any house owner is aggrieved he can file a suit to set aside the levy and cancel the enhancement, and allowing the plaintiffs to file a representative suit will amount to setting aside the levy and cancelling the enhancement in respect of each of the assessment arid that cannot be done. It is further contended that from the facts of the case it cannot be said that the plaintiffs and the other tax payers have the same interest in one suit. In support of this contention the defendants relied on a decision of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in K.P. Venkata Subbaiah v. The Hindupur Municipality represented by the Secretary and Special Officer, Municipal Office, Hindupur (1976)1 A.P.L.J. 302.
6. The question that has to be considered is whether the plaintiff and the other house tax payers have the same interest in one suit. May be each one of them can file a separate suit and get remedy, but that does riot mean that they cannot file a representative suit under Order 1, Rule 8, C.P.C. Mr. T.R. Mani, learned Counsel for the respon-dents-plain tiffs would contend that it is the case of the plaintiffs that against the principles laid down in the Supreme Court decision in Gundur Municipality v. Gundur Municipal Taxpayers Association , tax has been levied from the second half year of 1987-88 and collected, and in the first half year of 1990-91 and first half year of 1991-92 also without any basis and against the provisions of Act 35 of 1990 and against the ruling the Supreme Court in Gundur Municipality v. Gundur Municipal Tax Payers Association tax has been enhanced, and these would show that all the plaintiffs and other tax payers have the same interest.
7. In this connection the learned Counsel for the plaintiffs-respondents would cite a decision of the Supreme Court in The Chairman, Tamil Nadu Housing Board, Madras v. T.N. Ganapathy . In that case it has been held that,
The provisions of Order 1, Rule 8 have been included in the Code in the Public interest so as to avoid multiplicity of litigation. The condition necessary for application of the provisions is that the persons on whose behalf the suit is being brought must have the same interest. In other words either the interest must be common or they must have a common grievance which they seek to get redressed.
In that case in respect of allotment of plots to low income group tentative price for the plot was fixed subject to final determination within a stipulated period under an agreement and allottees occupied the properties on that basis. After a lapse of more than a decade fresh demands were made in 1975 threatening to dispossess in case of non-payment, which led to the filing of the suit. It is stated in the plaint that the cases of all the allottees in low income group of Ashok Nagar are identical and the plaintiff was representing them in asking for permanent injunction restraining the Board from enforcing the belated supplementary demands. The Supreme Court said as follows:
Coming to the relevant circumstances in the present case it will be seen that all the allotments in Ashok Nagar were made under that same scheme and all the relevant facts are common. The basis of the impugned demand of the appellant is equally applicable to all the allottees and the plea of the plaintiff is available to all of them. The trial court was, therefore, perfectly right in permitting the plaintiff to proceed under Order 1, Rule 8 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Nobody in this situation can complain of any inconvenience or injustice. On the other hand, the appellant is being saved from being involved in unnecessary repeated litigation.
Considering these I do not think that the order of the trial Court permitting the plaintiffs to sue in a representative capacity can be said to be erroneous. Accordingly the civil revision petition is dismissed at the admission stage.