Introduction

Representative suits can be filed in India under order 1, Rule 8 of the Code of Civil
Procedure, 1908. Order 1, Rule 8 describes the procedure for filing or defending a
representative suit. The text :;of order 1, Rule 8, one person may sue or defend on behalf of
all in same interest reads:
"(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 such persons so interested,
(b) the Court may direct that person 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 be 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suit shall be withdrawn under sub-rule (3), of Rule 1 of Order XXIII, and no agreement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.
(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 persons on whose behalf, or for whose benefit, they sue
or are sued, or defend the suit, as the case may be".
It may be noted here that the above section is substituted for former Rule 8 in 1976.
The effect of substitution is that old sub-rule (1) has been redrafted into sub-rule (1)and sub-
rule (2) without any change in substance. New sub-rule (3)corresponds to old sub-rule (2).

1
The rest is new. In the substituted rule provisions have been added to the effect:
(1) that the court can direct one or more persons to sue under this rule on behalf of others
(sub-rule (1) (b));
(2) that before a suit under this rule is withdrawn or compromised or the claim is abandoned
notice shall be given to the persons interested in the suit (this is in conformity with the
practice in court in the absence of any express provision) (sub-rule (,4)) (3) to deal with cases
when the persons suing do not proceed with due diligence (sub-rule (5); (4) that the decree
under this rule shall bind the parties on whose behalf the suit in instituted defended (sub-
rule(6)).
(5) Explanation has been added to clarify the position that it is not necessary that the party
representing and the parties represented should have the same cause of action as the
expression ’’same interest" created a doubt in the matter1.
The scheme of filing of suits and adjudicating upon causes under the Code indicates that it is
almost a four dimensional movement -
Firstly action by one party called plaintiff against an opposing party termed defendant;
Secondly, with regard to certain matters said to, l be in dispute; thirdly, having claim for
certain cause of action; and Fourthly seeking some sort of legal relief(2).
Order 1, as its title indicates, deals with the first part or the basic requirement of the suit, that
is the parties which can' be arrayed either as plaintiffs or defendants. Rule 1 deals with
plaintiffs and Rule 2 permits the courts to direct separate trials. Rule 3 indicates who can be
the defendants.2 To Rule 1 and 3 Rule 8 is in the nature of a proviso, so that with the
permission of the Court, without either following the joinder prescribed by Rule 1 or Rule 3,
a person who can be called a representative of others, either plaintiff or defendant, may
prosecute or defend the action (5). Once the permission is so granted under Rule 8, the legal
effect of, such permission is as follows.
If the permission is in favour the plaintiff, the suit is deemed to have been instituted by
everyone whose interest is permitted to be represented by the plaintiff and, if the permission
is for the defence, the representative defendant represents the interest of all those for whom
the representation is allowed. To both these categories the term "representative suit" is
commonly applied.
The concept of representative1 suits is a traditional legal concept having its base in English
and American laws. It is an ancient exception, based upon considerations of necessity,

1
1907) 31 Bom 393, (398)
2
Sarkar, Code of Civil Procedure , 1992. Page 518.

2
paramount convenience and the desire to prevent a failure of justice, to the general rule in
equity that all persons materially interested in the subject matter must be made parties in
order that complete justice be done, or to the Chancery rules of compulsory joinder.

Research Questions
 What are Representative Suits in the Civil Procedural Code in India?
 Which judicial pronouncements led to the framing of Representative Suits?
Scope and Objective
Scope- The scope of the research paper is limited to the understanding and analysis of
Representative Suits given under Order I Rule VIII of the CPC.
Objectives-
 To analysis the concept of Representative Suits.
 To go through judicial pronouncements to have a better understanding of the same.
Literature Review
• Sir DinshawFardunjiMulla, THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE (ABRIDGED),
16th ed. 2013
The book is an authority on the Civil Procedure in India and not only provides an extensive
list of cases pertaining to Order I of the Code, but also an analysis of the various landmark
pronouncements of the apex Court in this regard. The book serves as a very systematic and
comprehensive guide to understanding the effect of the death, marriage or insolvency of a
party to the suit and the procedure to be followed in such situations.
• C. K. Takwani, THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE WITH LIMTATION ACT,
1963, 7th ed. 2016
An extremely student-friendly book, it provides a very lucid and brief analysis of the
concepts along with the pronouncements of the Supreme Court and the general principles
derived from the same. Order I of the Code of Civil Procedure and the constituent rules of
that Order have been explained very clearly so as to present an extremely clear picture to any
student of law.

Research Methodology
1. Approach to research
In this project, the researcher has adopted Doctrinal type of research. Doctrinal research is
essentially a library-based study, which means that the materials needed by a researcher may

3
be available in libraries, archives and other data-bases. This research is totally based on
library. Various types of books were used to get the adequate data essential for this project.
The researcher also used computer laboratory to get important data related to this topic. Help
from various websites were also taken.
2. Type of research
It is clearly an exploratory type of research. In an exploratory study the researcher works on a
relatively unstudied topic or area of knowledge with purpose of finding out unknown or
partially known facts.
3. Sources of data collection
Data has been collected from secondary sources like: books, web sources etc. No primary
sources like survey data or field data were collected by the researcher.

4
Background and Understanding
A representative proceeding in India can take many forms. In the context of company law,
the aggrieved party may file a derivative suit, a petition for oppression and mismanagement,
or a ‘class action’ under Section 245 of the Companies Act, 2013. Under the Code of Civil
Procedure, 1908 (“Code”), two other forms are recognized; an action under Section 91 of the
Code when the action affects the public and a suit under Order 1, Rule 8 of the Code. At the
outset it is important to understand that none of these kinds of actions are ‘class actions’ in
the sense as used in USA and United Kingdom. Section 91 of the Code comes closest to
bearing any semblance to a ‘class action'.
The Bombay High Court recently in Pramod Premchand Shah v. Ratan N Tata 3 analysed the
provisions of Order 1, Rule 8 of the Code and representative actions under that provision. In
that case, Plaintiffs, who were shareholders in one or more of the Tata Group of Companies,
alleged that the actions of Mr. Ratan Tata and other defendants (which included some of the
Tata companies) leading the ouster of Mr. Cyrus Mistry led to a crash in the share prices of
these companies and prayed, inter alia, that the actions of these companies in ousting Mr.
Mistry were illegal and that a sum of Rs. 41,832 crores (the collective loss or erosion in the
value of the shares) be ordered to be paid as damages by the Defendants. Along with the suit,
the Plaintiffs filed an application for leave under Order 1, Rule 8 of the Code seeking to file
the suit in representative capacity, on behalf of ‘all the non-promoter shareholders’ of the
Tata companies. The leave was granted at first instance by the Single Judge of the Bombay
High Court and the Defendants thereafter filed an application for revocation of the leave.
Order 1, Rule 8 of the Code states that where there are numerous persons having the same
interests in one suit, one or more of such persons may, with the permission of the Court, sue
or be sued or defend such suit on behalf of the persons so interested. In this sense, the Code
allows both the Plaintiffs and the Defendants to act in a representative capacity if such
persons have/ “the same interest in one suit”. A decree passed by the Court in such a suit is
binding on all the persons so interested. The Bombay High Court held, inter alia, held:
“8….. Every suit has three components – the first is the right or liability, breach or
accrual of which is complained of in the suit; the second is the injury or grievance resulting
from any actual breach or accrual on the part of the opponent; and the third is the relief that
is claimed in the suit. Each person having the ‘same interest in the suit’ must have
commonality with the plaintiff, or the defendant, as the case maybe, in respect of each of
these three components…”
3
O.809 OF 2017 IN SUIT NO.192 OF 2017

5
Applying the above principle to the facts at hand, the Hon’ble Court held that the
shareholders do not form a class for the purpose of “the interest in the suit”. Each shareholder
may not have the same grievance in respect of the Defendants; in fact, some shareholders
may even support the Defendants. Further, all the shareholders may not want the same reliefs
in the suit as prayed for. In the circumstances, the leave under Order 1, Rule 8 was revoked.
It is also pertinent to mention that perhaps a suit like the present one claiming Rs. 41,000
crore was filed in the Bombay High Court and no non-Presidency Court because a suit in the
Bombay High Court can attract only a maximum court fee of Rs. 3 lakh while in any other
non-Presidency Court, the plaintiffs would have had to pay an ad-valorem court fee.
The Bombay High Court also held “the question is whether there is a class of persons having
the same interest in the suit and that question has to be decided at the date of when leave of
the Court is sought, when it is only the plaintiff who is before the court” and the Court must,
at this stage, analyse the interest on behalf of those who are claimed to be represented. This
mandate by the Bombay High Court brings us to another case pending in the Court.
In Dow Chemical International Pvt. Ltd. v. Satinath Sarangi, some persons were
protesting/picketing outside the Dow Chemicals office in Mumbai, for the gross violations by
the company and its culpability in the Bhopal Gas disaster. Dow Chemicals immediately filed
a suit in the Bombay High Court against, not only the people allegedly physically present and
participating in the protest, but also other organisations fighting for the rights of victims of
the Bhopal Gas Disaster and a Defendant No. 18 being,
“All other bodies and/or association, and/or persons and/or individuals and/or unions
and/or organisations whether incorporated and/or unincorporated whether registered and/or
unregistered and connected with directly or indirectly the victims of the Bhopal Gas leak
tragedy and/or protecting and/or fighting for their rights”
Along with the suit, the Dow Chemicals also filed an application seeking leave under Order
1, Rule 8 of the Code to sue all such persons included above in “representative capacity”.
Leave to file the suit under Order 1, Rule 8 was initially granted and thereafter confirmed by
the Hon’ble Court on 7th October, 2016. What is quite surprising is that along with the suit,
Dow Chemicals also filed a notice of motion seeking reliefs, inter alia, that the Defendants
(including Defendant No.18) be restrained from mobbing, picketing, protesting or holding a
demonstration within a 200 meter radius of any property of Dow Chemicals mentioned in the
motion. By an order dated 2nd May, 2013, the Bombay High Court granted an ad-interim
order in respect of the said prayer and confirmed the said order by its order dated 29th
September, 2016. Thus, as of date, no person (including the reader and myself) can protest

6
against Dow Chemicals in front of its properties in Mumbai. The named defendants in the
plaint did not appear in the suit. It is not sure if Dow Chemicals has served any notice on ‘all
the persons so interested’ under Order 1, Rule 8(2) of the Code.
However, if the mandate of Order 1, Rule 8 of the Code is that the court must scrutinise the
application and see if all the persons have a ‘common interest’ or the ‘same interest’, then the
Court ought to have scrutinised this seemingly ridiculous application of Dow Chemicals in
this case. As a consequence of leave being granted and the interim order, each person
protesting against Dow Chemicals would be in contempt of the Hon’ble Court’s order. Even
if the defendants did not appear in the case, the Hon’ble Court ought to have applied its mind
and passed a reasoned order in the case. It could also be said that the case exposes an inherent
inequality in Order 1, Rule 8; that it is only the plaintiff who seeks leave under Order 1, Rule
8 of the Code, and whilst the Plaintiff gets a hearing (as in the case of Pramod Premchand),
the Defendant (especially where it is alleged that the known defendant represent other
parties), not being a party in the first instance, does not get heard and can only apply for
revocation of leave after notice in terms of Order 1, Rule 8(2) of the Code. In Dow
Chemical’s case, the ad-interim order restraining any form of protest was in force for atleast 3
years and no notice was (or yet has been) given to Defendant No. 18 (as the online records
demonstrate).
On another note, it is observed that in the context of super injunctions and ‘John Doe’ or
‘Ashok Kumar’ orders, the Court does not even apply the procedure under Order 1, Rule 8 of
the Code but rather grants relief to the plaintiff against unknown defendants under Section
151 of the Code. It is submitted that in an ordinary suit, i.e. a suit against known plaintiffs
and defendants, the court can grant interim relief against third parties and unknown
respondents while still proceeding against the known defendants in the suit. In Swantanter
Kumar v. The Indian Express Ltd.4 and Balaji Motion Pictures v. BSNL & Ors 5, the courts
granted a super injunction and a ‘John Doe’ order respectively, restraining the unknown
respondents. These respondents were not defendants in the suit. However, it is also observed
that in some cases, the plaintiff adds an unknown defendant (as opposed to a party in the
notice of motion) and seeks relief without seeking leave under Order 1, Rule 8 of the Code. A
case in point is Phantom Films Private Limited v. Sonali Cable Pvt. Ltd. (Suit No. 832 of
2015, Bom HC), where the plaintiff merely added a John Doe defendant as Defendant No.3
and obtained interim relief. This is clearly against the mandate of Order 1, Rule 8 of the

4
I.A. No.723/2014 in CS(OS) No.102/2014
5
SUIT (L) NO. 694 OF 2016

7
Code. Further, the Supreme Court in Padam Sen v. State6 and Vinod Seth v. Devinder Bajaj7
has clearly held that Section 151 of the Code cannot be applied when there is an existing
provision in the Code to the contrary. It is incomprehensible as to how this practice is
prevalent.

Essential Conditions
There are certain things which must be needed for a representative suit. They are as follows:
1. There must be numerous number of parties
2. The interest of all parties must be the same
3. The court should give permission
4. Notice must be issued to proposed parties
The provision laid down in the law will save the precious time of the Court and cut down
expense. The matter can be determined in a single trial. It may be clarified that the numerous
persons may not have same cause of action or same transactions. What is required is the same
interest between parties to the matter.
There are some other things also which can be noted. The further proceedings of
representative suit is dealt with in Order 1 Rule 8 sub rules 2 to 6 of CPC. The Court shall
give notice at the expense of the plaintiff to all interested persons. Any person who has an
interest in the suit and on whose behalf or benefit the suit is instituted or defended may apply
to make himself as a party to such suit. Any abandonment of claim in such suit, withdrawal
and compromise has to be made known to the parties. The decree passed in a representative
suit shall be binding on all persons.

Analysis of the Rules

It is clear from sub-rule 1, that there are two main conditions which must be fulfilled by a
person to file or defend a representative suit. There should be numerous persons and they
must all have same interest in one suit. The categories of cases which can come under this
rule will depend particularly on the interpretation of the term "same interest." Permission of
the Court must be obtained and the Court plays a significant role in representative suits. It has
been held that such a permission may be granted even after the institution of the suit, even at
the appellate stage. The principle consideration ,that should weigh with a court is whether
there is sufficient community of interest as between the plaintiffs or the defendants to justify
the adoption of the procedure provided under this rule. Sub-Clause (b) of sub-rule 1, gives
6
1961 AIR 218
7
CIVIL APPEAL NO.4891 OF 2010

8
power to, the court to suo moto direct one or more such’ persons to represent others in
suitable cases which satisfy the tests of "numerous persons" and "same interest". Thus, the
initiative in the interest of justice can be taken even by the Court as the court is expressly
authorised by the, legislature to direct filing (by converting) or prosecuting a suit as a
representative suit. What is sufficient community of interest is dealt with in detail later.
Question of limitation would not arise for getting permission to continue with a suit already
filed as a representative suit. Thus it has been held that in a suit filed in 1982 for declaration
that the election of the President of the society is illegal, application after number of years,
for leave under 0.1, R 8 was allowed on the ground that question of limitation was not
involved.
The consent of the defendant , on the record is not necessary to enable the Court to permit
the plaintiff to sue the defendant as representing the whole community. 8 It is only just and
proper that in a case where a person's,, rights are threatened by numerous persons, they
should be permitted to sue them, making a few of them to represent themselves, and the rest.
Thus, where the defendants prevented the plaintiff from removing the trees from his land
saying that they had planted them on behalf of the local inhabitants, the persons who can
really be interested in resisting the suit are the defendants in particular and all other
inhabitants of the vicinity in general. To such a case. Order 1, Rule 8 is well attracted. Some
of the persons of the locality can validly be sued as representatives, it is their choice whether
to pursue the matter or to allow it to go by default. A notice to public will be advertised and
any person interested may apply to the Court to be made a party to such suit. It is no ground
to reject an application under Or. 1 R-8 where a person sought to be made a representative
refuses to do so.
On the other hand if the plaintiff chooses to implied large number of persons having the same
interest in the suit, it gives option to some of the defendants to seek permission to defend on
behalf of or for the benefit of all. 9 Sub-rule 2 makes it necessary for the representative party
to give notice of ,such a suit to all persons who he thinks will be interested in such a suit
either by personal service or by public advertisement. It is only when due, to the number of
persons or any other cause which the Court thinks is appropriate (e.g. a fluctuating body) that
personal service is not reasonably practicable, service by public advertisement will be
allowed. Notice assumes particular importance due to the applicability of the principle of res
judicata by sub rule 6, to representative suits.

8
AIR 1976 Bom. 401 (403).
9
AIR 1962 MP 363 (365), A 1978 H.P.22(23)

9
It is the duty of the Courts to see carefully that proper notices are issued and that notices,
where they are published, are printed in such a paper that the persons interested are likely to
read it.10
Where, the plaintiffs filed a suit for the possession of the land in a representative capacity
under 0.1, R.8 for permission to sue on behalf of and for the benefit of all the members of the
institution, and the trial Court in its turn, issued publication as required under 0.1, R.8 but
nobody came forward after the publication of notice either to oppose the suit or to be made a
party in the case and after a decade had elapsed when the appeal was pending an objection
was raised that the permission as required under 0.1, R;8 has not! been granted by the trial
Court, it was held that, it would be deemed that the trial Court by issuing publication under
0.1, R.8 impliedly granted the permission to the plaintiffs to sue on behalf of institution and
there was no need to remand the suit as ,{no prejudice was caused to anybody. In fact, the
trial Court has assumed 1 the issuance of such permission otherwise there, was nothing 12 for
that Court to grant such permission expressly.11
Sub-rule 3 then permits any such person to come to court to be made party to such a suit.
Permitting the person to sue as a representative of another is a matter of far-reaching effects
as it is likely to determine the rights of those who may not participate as the suit proceeds to
hearing. Such persons are entitled obviously to put before the Court the objections to the
filing of the suit, to the capacity of the representative who seeks either to be the plaintiff or
defendant, and even to the merits of the cause which is tried to be put before Court in the
shape of reliefs prayed.12 It is for the court to decide whether one or more persons out of the
numerous persons for or against whom the action is brought should be permitted to sue or be
sued against. The Court can pass suitable orders for this purpose. It can allow parties to be
arrayed as formal plaintiffs or defendants if they object to their representative defendant or
plaintiff respectively. The Court can restrict the class only to consenting members, leaving
open the question relating to others. The notice by public advertisement must disclose the
names of persons permitted to be representative plaintiff or defendant, nature of the suit as.
well as the reliefs claimed therein so as to enable interested persons to get themselves implied
as parties.13

10
AIR 1955 Mad 281 (286, 287 ). ,(FB) ,AIR 1973 Bom 276 (280)
11
AIR 1961 Punj. 111, (1989) 1 Cur,(Cal.)
12
AIR 1961 Punj. 111 (112)
13
AIR 1960 M.P.288 (288), AIR 1973 MP 216.

10
Sub-rule 4 prohibits abandonment, withdrawal, compromise or agreement of the suit, either
of the whole or part, until notice to all interested persons has been given by court at the
plaintiff's expense in the manner prescribed in sub-rule 2.
After notice however the representative can compromise the suit being dominus litis.14 Order
23, rule 3B of the C.P.C. also expressly enacts that no agreement or compromise in a
representatives suit shall be entered into without the leave of the court expressly recorded in
the proceedings; and any such agreement or compromise entered into without the leave of the
court so recorded shall be void. This shows the desire of the legislature to protect the interest
of all possible persons who would be affected by the compromise of a representative suit.
Sub-rule 5 gives power to the court to substitute the representative with another person
having the same interest if the representative is not acting with due diligence. According to J
Mulla's Treatise on the Code: "Sub-rule 5 provides for transposition of party from category of
defendant to plaintiff and vice versa. For such transposition court has to see that, the party
sought to be transposed is not acting with due diligence.
There is no limit of satisfaction and hence to act case has to be judged on its own merit.
Previously transposition was done under inherent power. Under this Rule court can transpose
a defendant to plaintiff and a plaintiff to a defendant. The only pre-requisite for such
transposition is that he is not acting bonafidely, otherwise court's hand is fettered to pass such
an order.15
Sub-rule 6 provides that a decree is binding on all persons on whose behalf or for whose
benefit the suit is instituted. In other words this sub-rule makes the principle of res judicata
as enshrined in Section 11 of the Code applicable even to representative suits. It has been
held in several decisions that, it being so, the procedure prescribed by rule 8 must be strictly
followed by the Courts.16 A decree obtained in a representative suit instituted in accordance
with the provisions of Order 1, Rule 8 will be binding as res judicata on all the members that
belong to the class who are sought to be represented. 17 Thus, if notice as prescribed in sub-
rule 2 is given, the decision in a representative suit will be binding on all the members of the
class sought to be represented in that suit, whether they join and take interest in the suit or
not.
So a decree made in a representative suit under rule 8 is not only not open to challenge by
other members of the class that were sought to be represented because of the rule of res
14
AIR 1960 Punj 26 (28)
15
AIR 1987 Jand K 79 (81)
16
AIR 1976-Bom. 401 (403)
17
(1978) 45 Cut LT 141, AIR 1927 Cal 608:101 IC 738, AIR 1973 All 281.

11
judicata under Section 11 read with Explanation 6 with regard to the public right or private
right which can be claimed by the class of persons, but because of this express provision
made in the Code, such a decree is also binding and actually enforceable by execution against
those others not implied in the suit but represented by others actually on record, and this
express provision makes no distinction between a decree of injunction and, other kind of
decree in regard to this bitadingness and executability. Even if the judgment ' does not
specify in the decrial portion that the suit I is decreed against the defendants in their
representative capacity, the statutory effect is that it is binding on all persons for whose
benefit the suit was defended.18
As is clear from the Objects and Reasons Order 1, Rule 8 created a doubt as to whether the
party representing others should have the same cause of action as the persons represented by
him.
The amendment to the rule in 1976 has added an Explanation to clarify that such persons
need not have the same cause of action. Same interest therefore does not mean same cause of
action under this rule.
It has been made clear beyond all doubts by the insertion of Explanation by 1976 Amending
Act that it is not necessary that the party instituting and the parties represented should have
the same cause of action. What is more important is community of interest.
If for example- A sues 100 persons who have in pursuance of a conspiracy trespassed on his
land or have wrongfully confined him, and A asks for declaratory relief, the court should
have the power to permit him to sue, say, 3 of the opponents as representatives of all the
hundred, provided there is community of interest among them, which can be said to exist
where there is concerted action or a common object though the cause of action against each
trespasser is separate.19 This concept is elaborated in more details in the next portion.
Finally, a Representative suit does not abate on the death of the representative as he or she
can be substituted by another member of the plaintiff on defendant. It may also be noted that
it is possible under Order 33, rule 1 for a representative to file a suit in forma paupers i.e. as
indigent person. But the Explanation to that rule makes it clear that where the plaintiff sues in
a representative capacity, the question whether he is indigent person shall be determined with
reference to the means possessed by him in such capacity.
Now we turn to the discussion of the types of suits that are filed as representative suits in
India on the basis of the facts which show "same interest" either of the plaintiffs or

18
AIR 1955 Mad. 281 at 283
19
Vide Law Commission's 54th Report pp. 114,115

12
defendants.20 This will give us an idea of different substantive areas of law where this legal
device has been used in India.

20
AIR 1951 M.P. 296. AIR 1961 All . 266

13
Conclusion
Thus, as a general rule all persons interested in a suit ought to be joined as parties to it, so that
the matter involved therein maybe finally adjudicated upon an fresh litigation over the same
matters may be avoided. A representative suit is an exception to this rule. Order I rule 8 of
IPC provides that when there are Number of persons similarly interested in a suit, one or
more of them can, with the permission of court or upon a direction from the court , sue or to
be sued on behalf of themselves and others. The plaintiff in a representative suit need not to
be obtain the previous consent of the person to whom he seeks to represent.
The object underlying this provision is really to facilitate the decision of questions in which a
large number of person are interested without recourse to the ordinary procedure. Order I
rule 8 of the code has been framed in order to save time and expense, to ensure a single
comprehensive trial of questions in which numerous persons are interested and avoid
harassment to parties by a multiplicity of suits .In cases where the common right or interest
of a community or members of an association for large sections is involved, there will be
insuperable practical difficulties in the institution of suits under the ordinary procedure,
where each individual has to maintain and action by separate suit. To avoid numerous suits
being filed or for decision of a common question , Order 1 rule 8 has come to be enacted. The
provision therefore should receive liberal interpretation, which will sub serve the object of
its enactment.

14