Analysis of Representative Suit Under

Civil Procedure Code

PROJECT

Submitted by:
Anant Bhardwaj

Batch - 2020-25, Division - E, BA.LL.B.

PRN- 20010223086

Symbiosis Law School, Noida

Symbiosis International (Deemed University), Pune

Date: - July 29th, 2023

 INTRODUCTION
As delineated in “Order I Rule 8 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC)”, a representative suit offers a
mechanism for filing a suit on behalf of others with a shared interest in the subject matter. Under Section 11 of
the CPC, the doctrine of res judicata states that if an issue has been decided by a competent court between the
same parties and with the exact cause of action, it cannot be reopened in subsequent cases. Representative
suits fall under the purview of res judicata, binding the decree on all parties represented, provided notice is
given. This provision is designed for convenience and aims to prevent the burden of multiple proceedings.
The rationale behind this provision is rooted in convenience, reason, and sound policy, as it alleviates the
burden of expenses and complexities that would arise in cases involving multiple parties with similar
interests. By consolidating the claims of various individuals or entities into a single comprehensive trial,
representative suits save time, money, and effort while preventing the occurrence of multiple lawsuits and
contradictory judgments. The guiding principle of representative suits is grounded in public policy, aiming to
promote efficiency, fairness, and accessibility within the judicial system. To proceed with a representative suit,
certain key elements must be satisfied, including clearly defining the shared interest among the parties
involved and obtaining the court's permission before initiating the legal proceedings. The importance of
adhering to court approval for such suits was highlighted in the case of Diwakar Shrivastava vs the State of
Madhya Pradesh1. Therefore, representative suits stand as an essential legal avenue to address the collective
interests of a community or a group of individuals, ensuring a streamlined resolution of disputes and fostering
a more effective and equitable legal process.

ANALYSIS
The concept of a representative suit (RS) is a significant provision which allows one person to sue or defend
on behalf of others who share the same interest in the matter. The CPC does not explicitly define RS, but
“Explanation VI to Section 11 and Sub-Rule (2) to Rule 3-B of Order XXIII” include "a suit under rule 8 of
Order I" within the definition of "representative suit." Representative suits can also arise in other contexts,
such as suits under Section 91 “related to public nuisances and other wrongful acts affecting the public,” and
Section 92 “related to public charities” of the CPC or Section 53 of the Transfer of Property Act as mentioned
in R. Venugopala Naidu And Ors vs Venkatarayulu Naidu Charities 2.

Order I, Rule 8 provides for representative suits as “one person may sue or defend on behalf of all in same
interest”. The representative suits under CPC can be filed in two ways (Sub-Rule 1): Either on permission
from the court or at the court’s direction. CPC entails specific requirements for such representative suits:
a) On the court’s direction, serve a notice to all the interested persons or if there are a large number of people,
notice through a public notice such as public advertisement. (Sub-Rule 2)
b) No claim under representative suit can be withdrawn or abandoned, or no agreement, compromise, or
satisfaction can be recorded unless a similar notice (including public notice) has been served to all the
interested parties. (Sub-Rule 4)
Thus, the fundamentals of Order I, Rule 8 is that (“the parties are numerous + they have the same interest in
the suit + the necessary court permission is obtained or direction is given + notice under sub-rule (2) is
given”).

1
1984 AIR 468, 1984 SCR (2) 792
2
1990 AIR 444, 1989 SCR Supl. (1) 760
The question arises if such requirements (sub-rule 2 and 4) are binding even at the appellate stage. This shall
not be a question considering as a general rule; an appeal is considered as a continuation of the suit only but
representative suits are peculiar to the effect since they are related to rights and liabilities of one or more
persons. Further, there have been judgments to support on such a binding necessity. This project tries to
analyse the same in light of a 3-judge bench decision of the Kerala High Court.

In a significant case before the Kerala High Court, a reference was made to a three-judge bench from a
Division Bench judgment concerning representative suits. The original suit was brought on behalf of the
“Maniyani and Navudiya communities of Karivellur village”, Kerala, alleging that the defendants attempted
to construct a moratorium over the property mentioned in the plaint schedule. The Munsiff Court initially
dismissed the suit, but it was later appealed in the subordinate court, where the decision was reversed.

During the proceedings before the single judge, an issue arose regarding compliance with Order I, Rule 8
requirements. The single judge referred to judgment of Kerala High Court in Radha K.S. v. Sadasivan and
another3, established that an appeal or cross-objection against a decree in a representative suit is considered
improperly constituted if the conditions outlined in Order I, Rule 8 are not adhered to. The case emphasised
that compliance with Order I, Rule 8 is essential for the validity of an appeal or cross-objection arising from
matters that were allowed to be carried forward in the trial court under this specific rule. In summary, the
Radha case deemed strict adherence to Order I, Rule 8 as obligatory for sustaining an appeal or cross-
objection related to representative suits permitted to proceed under this rule in the trial court. However, in the
present case, the three-judge bench of the Kerala High Court held a different view. The bench clarified that the
requirements of Order I, Rule 8 are not binding at the appellate stage. The court explained that Order I, Rule
8, carves an exception to the general rule of joining suits involving the same question of law or interest,
governed by Order I, Rule 1 and Rule 3. The purpose of including Rule 8 in the CPC is to reduce the
multiplicity of suits, and as such, it has a distinct scope. In conclusion, the Kerala High Court's three-judge
bench held that the requirements of Order I, Rule 8 are not mandatory at the appellate stage. The court's ruling
clarified the position on the applicability of Order I, Rule 8 in representative suits during the appellate
proceedings, deviating from the earlier judgment in the Radha case.

In the case of Chairman Tamil Nadu Housing Board v. T.N. Ganapathy, the Supreme Court emphasised the
inclusion of Order I, Rule 8 in the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) for the public interest of preventing
multiple litigations. This rule applies when individuals share the same interest or have a common grievance
that needs redressal, allowing for a representative suit. The Court stressed the importance of interpreting the
rule in a manner that fulfills its purpose effectively.

The Court also highlighted the significance of Sub-rule 3, which permits any person on whose behalf a suit is
filed to request the court to join the suit as a party. In a representative suit, the party whose name appears in
the suit (referred to as eo nomine party) is considered the main party. In contrast, others are treated as parties
represented by them. As a result, individuals not named as defendants cannot face personal execution of a
decree, even though the defendants on record represent them under the procedure in Order I, Rule 8.

3
2017 (1) KHC 118
The principle elucidated in the Madras High Court's case of Kodia Goundar v. Velandi Goundar 4 and others is
that a decree for injunction cannot be extended to hold individuals not named as defendants (eo nomine
defendants) personally accountable for disobedience of the decree. A separate suit would be necessary to
enforce a decree against such individuals personally, enabling them to present their suitable defences.

Similarly, the Supreme Court's decision in V.J. Thomas v. Pathrose Abraham and others emphasised that no
personal decree can be issued against individuals not parties to the suit.

Considering the above analysis, it can be inferred that:

• Order I, Rule 8 of the CPC itself does not necessitate repeating the requirements at the appellate stage.
• The court's permission for representative suits remains discretionary and not obligatory.
• An appeal is essentially a continuation of the original proceedings, and it represents a vested right supported
by statute, crystallising on the date of the suit's initiation.
• The relationship between the pleader and the judicial proceedings clarifies the connection between the suit
and the appeal.

CONCLUSION

The concept of representative suits, governed by Order I, Rule 8 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), is a
valuable mechanism to address the shared interests of individuals. It prevents multiple litigations and
promotes efficiency in the judicial system. Res judicata, under Section 11 of the CPC, binds the decree on all
parties represented in the suit, provided proper notice is given. The Kerala High Court clarified that Rule 8
requirements are not mandatory at the appellate stage. Representative suits consolidate claims, saving time
and effort while ensuring consistent judgments. They serve the interest of justice and are rooted in public
policy. As the legal landscape evolves, representative suits remain essential in fostering a streamlined and
equitable resolution of disputes within the Indian legal framework.

4
AIR 1955 Mad 281