Venkatasubba Rao, J.
1. The question arises under Order 1, Rule 8, Civil P. C. I must first remark that the plaint is badly worded and so are the petitions, and the lower Court ought to have insisted upon the defects being remedied before it made the orders in question; but that does not alter the substance of the matter to1 be decided, although, I may point out, the lower Court will do well to require the plaintiffs to suitably amend the plaint and petitions. According to the plaint, there are two rival groups in the Vaniya Vaisya community to which the parties belong : (i) the Periya Thanakar : faction and (ii) the Nattamaikar faction. ', The plaintiffs, alleging that they belong 1 to the former body, have put forward in the suit a certain claim as against the. defendant, who is said to represent the rival group. They applied first that : they should be allowed to sue on behalf ; of, and as representing their group and.' secondly that the defendant should be allowed to be sued as representing his faction; in other words, they applied that the action should be regarded as a representative one both as regards the plaintiffs and the defendant. The objection taken in the lower Court seems to be that representation on both the sides should not be allowed in the same suit. This is a most unreasonable view to take of the section, and that contention must be rejected.
2. Next, it is contended that the provision does not apply when the dispute is between two groups inter se of the same caste or body. This contention is equally untenable and is opposed to the plain terms of the section. It is essential under the section that the parties should 'have the same interest, that is to say, it contemplated a community of interest. Provided there exist a common interest and a common grievance, that section [comes into play, and to give effect to the petitioner's contention would amount to placing a restricted construction, for which there is no warrant. If authority were needed for this proposition, it is to be found in Sirathal Periyava v. Velumuruga Nadar 1921 Mad 682, a decision of Napier and Krishnan, JJ. As I have said the plaintiffs' prayer in the petitions is wrongly worded. They are clearly not entitled to ask that they and the defendant should both be allowed to represent the same body, namely, the Yaniya 'Vaisya community. That of course would be absurd; but as to their real intention there can be no doubt and the lower Court's order should be understood in the light of the remarks I have made. The petitions accordingly are dismissed, but in the circumstances I make no order as to costs.