by this court without the juncture of Muttathukonam Sakha Yogam No.80, the original plaintiff, who had withdrawn the suit. In C.R.P.No.323/1992, the Division Bench of this Court permitted the then president and secretary to proceed with the suit in their personal capacity. No cause of action was either alleged or made mention to vindicate any personal right and no relief was sought in that behalf. In short, I am afraid directions were issued in C.R.P.No.323/1992 to proceed with the suit and adjudicate the dispute between the original plaintiff, the S.N.D.P. Sakha and the defendant, the S.N.D.P. Yogam after permitting withdrawal of the suit by the original plaintiff and without directing the original plaintiff to be impleaded as a codefendant in the suit. Even in the case of permitting to implead the original plaintiff as a co-defendant in the suit after the withdrawal of the suit by the original plaintiff, there is no provision for adjudicating a dispute between the defendants ( original defendant and co-defendant) in a suit filed solely for that purpose. The basic requirement of maintaining a suit is the cause of action for the plaintiff either in a representative capacity or in a personal
