Representative Suit Under Cpc

KEY TAKEAWAYS

• A representative suit is a suit that is filed by one or more persons for themselves as well as others having same interest in the suit which is enumerated under order 1 rule 8 of CPC.
• The conditions laid down for filing a representative suit.
• It also discusses about the difference between a representative suit and PIL, relation between representative suit and res-judicata, compromise in representative suit and related case laws.

INTRODUCTION

Order I Rule 8 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 deals with representative suit. A representative suit is a suit that is filed by one or more persons for themselves as well as others having same interest in the suit which means that a representative suit allows one or more persons to sue or be sued on behalf of numerous persons who have the same interest in a suit.  The overall guideline is that all people interested in a suit should be joined as parties to it so that the issue at hand can be resolved in its entirety and new litigation over the same issue can be avoided.

 Representative suit depends on public policy. It prevents multiplicity of suits and saves money, time, and labour. As Order 1 Rule 8 of the CPC is an enabling provision, it does not require a person to represent a group of people who share the same interests if his action can be maintained independently from the rest of the suit.

Order I Rule 8 reads as -

Rule 8 - One Person May Sue or Defend on Behalf of All in Same Interest

1. Where there are numerous persons having the same interest in one suit, -

(a) one or more of such persons may, with the permission of the Court, sue or be sued, or may defend such suit, on behalf of, or for the benefit of, all persons so interested.

(b) the Court may direct that one or more of such persons may sue or be sued, or may defend such suit, on behalf of, or for the benefit of, all persons so interested.

2. The Court shall, in every case where a permission or direction is given under sub-rule (1), at the plaintiff's expense, give notice of the institution of the suit to all persons so interested either by personal service, or, where, by reason of the number of persons or any other cause, such service is not reasonably practicable, by public advertisement, as the Court in each case may direct.

3. Any person on whose behalf, or for whose benefit, a suit is instituted or defended, under sub-rule (1), may apply to the Court to be made a party to such suit.

4.No part of the claim in any such suit shall be abandoned under sub-rule (1), and no such suit shall be withdrawn under sub-rule (3), of rule 1 of Order XXIII, and no agreement, compromise or satisfaction shall be recorded in any such suit under rule 3 of that Order, unless the Court has given, at the plaintiff's expense, notice to all persons so interested in the manner specified in sub-rule (2).

5. Where any person suing or defending in any such suit does not proceed with due diligence in the suit or defence, the Court may substitute in his place any other person having the same interest in the suit.

6. A decree passed in a suit under this rule shall be binding on all persons on whose behalf, or for whose benefit, the suit is instituted, or defended, as the case may be.

Explanation: For the purpose of determining whether the persons who sue or are sued, or defend, have the same interest in one suit, it is not necessary to establish that such persons have the same cause of action as the person on whom behalf, or for whose benefit, they sue or are sued, or defend the suit.

• In the case of Kaira District Co-op Milk Producers Union Ltd. And Ors. v. Kishore Shantilal Shah, as a representative, a member of the Jain community, Kishore Shantilal Shah, filed a lawsuit demanding a ruling that Amul cheese is not a vegetarian food, and that the defendant should not sell it as if it were. Kishore further claimed that the Jain community as a whole, is entirely vegetarian and that they have been misled. The Hon'ble High Court of Bombay found in this case that members of the Jain community share a common interest, making the suit under Order 1 Rule 8 tenable.

Representative suit is not quite the same as public Interest litigation on the grounds that the prerequisite of locus standi is more loose and it isn't required for the individual to have an interest in the suit assuming the matter in issue in the suit influences the overall population. Let us understand the difference between the two through the following table:

The critical circumstances for a representative suit are that the parties should be quite in number, have a similar interest, get necessary consent from the court, and give notice to all interested parties. The goal is to avoid excessive litigation by making it easier to quickly resolve issues that affect a lot of people. This provision under CPC would prevent parties from being harassed by multiple lawsuits by ensuring that a single comprehensive trial of questions takes place in cases involving the common interest of a particular community or group of people. This would save time and money.

• In Kodia Goundar and Another v. Velandi Goundar and others, a Full Bench of the Madras High Court observed that on the plain language of Order 1, Rule 8, the principal requirement to bring a suit within that Rule is the sameness of interest of the numerous person on whose behalf or for whose benefit the suit is instituted. The Court, while considering whether leave under the Rule should be granted or not, should examine whether there is sufficient community of interest to justify the adoption of the procedure provided under the Rule.
• The Supreme Court ruled in T.N. Housing Board v. T.N. Ganapathy that because Order 1 Rule 8 is an enabling provision, a person is not required to represent other people with a community of interest if his action is otherwise maintainable without joining the rest of the suit. At the end of the day, it doesn't suspend an individual from keeping a suit in his own right in regard of a wrong done to him.

The Supreme court laid down some prerequisite conditions that is to be fulfilled in order to file a representative suit in the case of Kalyan Singh vs Chhoti which 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.

To file such a lawsuit, you must meet the following requirements, as stated by the courts in the cases of Gangavishnu v. Nathulal, and Kumaravelu v. Ramaswami:"Numerous parties. Same interest, Court's permission, Suit's Notice.

1)The parties must be numerous:

The first condition for a representative suit is several parties. The word “several parties” imply a group of persons and does not mean innumerable persons.

• In Hasanali versus Mansoorali (1947), the Privy Chamber held that a representative suit for occupants of a town with respect to town property or for the individuals from the faction, rank, the community is viable under this standard.

2) They Must Have the Same Interest in the suit:

It is essential for the representative suit that both parties have the same stake in the case. They must all share the interest or have a common grievance for which they seek redress.

3)Permission of court:

Court must have granted permission, or the direction must have been given by the Court. This is required in order to bind the people other than the individuals who are really parties to it. The suit will not be representative if permission is denied. Consent under order 1, Rule 8, CPC might be conceded even after the organization of the suit and even at the investigative stage by permitting a correction, on the off chance that such alteration doesn't physically change the idea of the suit.

4)Notice:

This is the last condition that notice should be given to every concerned individual. It is required to notify all interested parties of the establishment of the suit whenever permission is granted to file a suit in representative capacity. Notice can be given directly through private help or by commercial as coordinated by the Court.

• In the case of Radha K. S. vs. Sadasivan and Anr, the Hon'ble Bench of Kerala High Court stated that the publication of notice under Order I Rule 8 of the Code of Civil Procedure is not required and further observed that there is no need to follow the procedure intermittently when an appeal is a continuation of the original suit proceedings, and the proceedings take on the nature of a representative suit.
• In Kumaravelu Chettiar versus T.P. Ramaswami Ayyar (1933), the Privy Committee held that the issue of notice is authoritative, and in the event that it isn't given, the pronouncement will tie just those parties who are on record.

Whether parties can be added or removed during the proceedings of the suit?

The answer is yes, parties can be added or removed according to the circumstances of the case following certain provisions prescribed under CPC order 1 rule 8.

It is given under order 1 rule 8 subrule 3 of the cpc that any person on whose behalf the suit is filed can ask for the permission of the court to be added as a party to the suit. Such an individual should show that the lead of the suit isn't in legitimate hands and that his advantage will be genuinely impacted by his bias in the event that he isn't joined as involved with the suit.

Likewise, under order 1 rule 8 subrule 5 says that on the off chance that any individual, suing in a representative capacity or defending a representative suit neglect to continue with a reasonable level of effort in the suit or safeguard, the court might substitute some other individual having similar interest in the suit in his place.

What is Res – Judicata?

Res Judicata is an expression which is characterized in section 11 of the civil procedure Code has been developed from a Latin maxim, which court, as "what has been judged" which implies in the event that an issue is brought in the court and it has proactively been concluded by another court, between similar parties and which has a similar cause of action then the court will excuse the case before it as being pointless. The idea of Res Judicata has high importance both in civil and Criminal system.

• The essential articles and activity of section 11 was properly pointed and seen by the High Court on account of Satyadhan Ghosal versus Deorajin Debi that arrangement of section 11 sanctions that once a matter is concluded by a competent court, no party can be allowed to resume it in ensuing prosecution.

To profit the supplication and comprise a matter as res judicata under section 11 the accompanying circumstances should be fulfilled:

1. The matter directly and substantially is in issue in the subsequent suit or issue must be the same matter which was directly and substantially in issue either actually or constructively in the former suit.
2. The former suit must have been a suit between the same parties or between the parties under whom they or any of them claim.
3. Such parties must have been litigating under the same title in the former suit.
4. The court which decided the former suit must be a court competent to try the subsequent suit or the suit in which such issue is subsequently raised.
5. The matter directly and substantially in issue in the subsequent suit must have been heard and finally decided by the court in the former suit.

REPRESENTATIVE SUIT AND RES JUDICATA

Sub-rule 6 of order 1 rule 8 says that a pronouncement is binding on all people for whose sake or for whose benefit the suit is initiated. As a result, representative suits are subject to Section 11 of the code as well. It has been held in a few decisions that, it being in this way, the method endorsed by rule 8 should be totally followed by the Courts.

All parties whose interests were represented in the representative suit are bound by the decision made in the case. Explanation VI to section 11 of the CPC states that where genuine prosecution is started in regard of a common private right or a public right, the result of such suit would work as res judicata on all people having an interest in that right. It isn't required that every one of the interested parties be named in the suit. The only requirement is that the person who started the litigation legitimately represented these people's interests.

• In the case of Rama Seshiah Vs. M. Ramayya the court explains the exception to general rule that all interested persons should be made parties to the suit. In a case where there are numerous persons having same interest in one suit, the rule enables a party to represent such numerous persons in common cause of action.

Compromise in representative suit.

A compromise is an agreement reached by two or more parties in which one or more of them agree to give up some of their desired outcomes. It's a consent to end a lawful conflict without going to court. The claims of the opposing parties will be kept at bay during the process of reaching a settlement to end the case.

Moreover, in different occurrences, the parties settled their suits through the cooperation of well-wishers and the conciliation system. When a civil suit has been recorded and sent off in court, the parties are allowed to arrive at a mutually agreeable settlement and compromise through any legitimately official understanding or compromise recorded as a hard copy endorsed by the parties as a whole. As such, all issues that can be concluded in a common debate can be settled by a compromise. A new regulation, Rule 3-B of Order 23, governs settlements in representative suits.

A compromise in a representative suit requires the court's approval; failing to obtain this approval will result in the compromise being null and void. Additionally, leave must be requested in advance.

Also, since a pleader is in the same situation as his client, he can enter a compromise on behalf of his client. Under Rule 3-B, a representative suit cannot settle without the court's approval. A compromise decree cannot be challenged in court on the grounds that it is unconstitutional, per Rule 3-A. If one party claims an adjustment and the other denies it, the court must decide on the matter and cannot postpone making that decision unless it finds good cause to do so.

Unless the court has given notice to all the interested. Such notice will be given at the expense of the plaintiff.

• In the case of Gurpreet vs. Chatur Bhuj, lays down two prerequisites for properly passing a compromise decree. The court must first be convinced that the dispute between the parties has been resolved, in whole or in part, by a valid agreement in writing that has been signed by all of them.

Abatement

The Bombay High Court, in Bhicoobai v. Haribai Raguji held that “The suit does not abate if a person appointed to conduct it dies. Other person(s) interested in the suit may proceed with it or may apply to be added as plaintiff(s).” This is because such a person is merely the representative of all persons who are constructively parties to the suit.

CONCLUSION

To sum up, we can see that Order I rule 8 is significant and should be completely observed, as per the four key circumstances, in view of the calculated comprehension of representative suit. Further, in milestone cases, it was likewise resolved that a pronouncement gave in a representative suit could be completed very much like some other declaration and what's more, while looking at the distinctions between a PIL and a representative suit, we see that the circumstances for a representative suit are absent while documenting a PIL, and anybody whose essential right has been disregarded can record a PIL, though this isn't the case with a representative suit.

As stated, there are a number of requirements that must be satisfied, which were described in detail. Subsequently, a delegate suit decreases the Court's burden and guarantees that the matter is settled rapidly in light of the fact that it includes a community of interest.