REPRESENTATIVE SUITS
1. INTRODUCTION
Generally, in the interests of full and final disposition of the case all interested parties to a
litigation ought to be joined as parties thereto. However, the exception to this rule is
provided by Order 1 Rule 8 of the Code of Civil Procedure in the form of Representative
suits, where one or more people, can, if there are several persons similarly interested in
the suit, with the permission of the court or upon a direction from the court, sue or be
sued on behalf of themselves and the others.
2. WHAT ARE REPRESENTATIVE SUITS?
A representation suit is a suit filed by or against one or more persons, on behalf of other
persons who are similarly interested in that suit, i.e., a suit filed in a representative
capacity.
For instance, where A, on behalf of all creditors of B, sues B, it would be a suit filed in
representative capacity.
3. OBJECT
The object is to facilitate judicial decisions in cases involving the common interest of
a large number of people. Where the common right or interest of a community on
members of an association or large sections is involved, there will be insuperable
practical difficulty in the institution of suits under the ordinary procedure, where each
individual has to maintain an action by a separate suit.
Representative suits under Rule 8 helps in avoiding numerous suits being filed for the
decision of a common question. It, therefore, saves time and expense by ensuring a
single comprehensive trial of question in which several people are interested so as to
avoid harassment to parties by multiplicity of suits.
It is an enabling provision, and therefore, must be interpreted liberally, so as to give
effect to the object of its enactment.
In T.N. Housing Board V. T.N. Ganapathy, the Apex court held that Order 1 Rule 8
being an enabling provision, does not compel an individual to represent other persons
having community of interest if his action is otherwise maintainable without joining
the rest in this suit. In other words, it does not debar a member of a community from
maintaining a suit in his own right in respect of a wrong done to him.
4. CONDITIONS
The Supreme Court in Kalyan Singh v. Chhoti, laid down the prerequisite conditions in
order to file a representative suit. These are:
the parties must be numerous;
they must have the same interest in the suit;
permission or direction to file the representative suit must be given by the court;
notice must be issued to the parties who are proposed to be represented by the suit.
i. The Parties Must Be Numerous
The question whether the parties can be set to be numerous must be decided by the
Court upon the facts of each case taking into consideration inter-alia, the nature of the
controversy, the subject matter in dispute etc. It is not necessary that the body of
persons represented by the plaintiffs or defendants must be ascertainable, however,
they must be sufficiently definite so as to enable the Court to recognise the
participants in the suit.
ii. Same interest in the suit
Community of interest is essential and it is a condition precedent for bringing a
representative suit. This interest must be common to all, or, all must have a
common grievance which they seek to get rid rest in the representative suit.
The Explanation to Rule 8 states that in order to determine whether or not the
persons being represented have the same interest as the person instituting or
defending the suit, it is not neccessary that all must have the same cause of action.
That is to say, even where the cause of action differs, the interest might be same.
In Duke of Bedford v. Ellis it was held that, “A representative suit was in order if
the relief sort was in its nature beneficial to all whom the plaintiff proposed to
represent.”
In In TN. Housing Board v. T.N. Ganapathy, residential buildings were allotted
by the Housing Board to the applicants who belonged to low-income group. After
settlement of price, excess demand was made. This was challenged by filing a suit
in a representative capacity. It was contended that such a suit in a representative
capacity was not maintainable as separate demand notices were issued against
each allotlee, thereby giving rise to separate causes of action.
However, the Supreme Court held that all the allottees had the same interest and,
therefore, the suit was maintainable.
iii. Permission of Court
The court must Grant permission or give direction to file a representative suit. It is
the discretion of the court whether or not to grant such permission and the
decision must be based on the whether or not there is a sufficient community of
interest as between the plaintiffs or the defendant, as the cases may be, to justify
the adoption of the procedure under rule 8.
Such permission may be granted before the suit is filed, or even at the appellate
stage by amendment of plaint.
iv. Notice
Since, unless the decree has been obtained by fraud or collusion, it is binding on
all such persons on behalf of whom the suit was instituted or being defended, it is
binding on all, notice of the suit must be sent to all parties who would be bound by
the decree. otherwise, they might get prejudicially affected even though they’re on
aware of the suit. Therefore, notice is necessary.
In Kumaravelu Chettiar v. Ramaswami Ayyar, it was held that, if notice is not
given, the decree will bind only those persons who are on record.
Such notice shall be at the plaintiff’s expense, and must be given either by
personal service, or where that is not possible due to practical considerations, by
public advertisement, according to the directions of the court.
