AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Suuba Rao, C.J.—Code of Criminal Procedure No. 1362 of 1954. This is a revision against the Order of the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Srikakulam, allowing the petition tiled by .the Respondents under O, 1, R, 8, CPC Code, for permission to sue in a representative capacity.
The facts may be briefly stated. The Plaintiffs belong to the Velama community and are riots of Soperu. Their case is that they and the other villagers of Super entered into an agreement with the Zamindnr of Bobbili and second Defendant to the effect that out of the rent payable to him 70 per cent, should be permanently deducted, that the old cash mujara of Rs. 68C-9-3 should be continued in their favour and for other Incidental relief''s. They filed the suit, therefore for a declaration that they are entitled to a permanent remission of 70 per cent, in their annual dowel of Rs. 2,608 besides the old cash mujara, special mujara, and for other reliefs. They filed the aforesaid petition seeking permission of the Court to allow them to sue In a representative capacity as the other villagers were numerous and had the same interest in the suit as the Plaintiffs. The learned Subordinate Judge held that there was community of interests between the Respondents and the other villagers and gave the permission asked for.
The learned Counsel for the Petitioner argues that the suit was filed by the Respondents to enforce a liability under a contract and there fore the provisions of Order 1, Rule 8, cannot be in voked.
Order 1, Rule 8, governs the situation. It reads:
Where there are numerous persons having the same interest in one suit, one or more of such persons may, with the permission of the Court, sue or be sued, or may defend in such suit on behalf of or for the benefit of all persons so'' interested....
The object of the rule is obvious. Where there is community of interests among numerous persons to avoid expense and trouble, a few of them are allowed to represent the whole. The House of Lords in The Duke of Bedford v. Eilis, 1901 ACC 1 (A), lays down the scope of the corresponding. English rule thus:
Given a common interest and a common grievance, a representative suit was in order if the relief sought was in its nature beneficial to all whom the Plaintiff proposed to represent.
The present case is certainly covered by this broad definition. Tire Plaintiffs along with the other residents of the village of Soperu are entitled to a permanent remission of 70 per cent, in their annual dowel besides other cash nears and therefore the Plaintiffs have a common interest with the other villagers in respect of their rights against the zamindar. But reliance is placed by the learned Counsel upon Ratnaswann Nadar v. Prince of Arco''s Endowments, Trichinonoly, 1938 2 MLJ 148 : AIR 1938 Mad 755) (B), in support of his contention that Order 1, Rule 8, has no application to a case to enforce a liability under a contract. There the Defendants were sued under Order 1, Rule 8, CPC Code, as representing a large number of village too numerous to be individually imp leaded on the allegation that all the Defendants in pursuance of a conspiracy combined together in order to deny the Plaintiff''s title and to take unlawful possession of the land. The learned Judges held that Order 1, Rule 8, enabled the Plaintiffs to file such a representative suit. At page 150 MLJ : (at pp. 755-756 of ATR), Venkata Subba Rao J., made the following observations:
Though the point is not covered'' by Indian authority, the law seems quite clear under the corresponding English rule, that thy procedure pertaining to representative suits is inapplicable to actions of debt, to money claims or to liabilities in contract or in tort.
Relying upon this observation it is contended that in the instant case the Plaintiffs are seeking to enforce the liability of the reminder arising under a contract and therefore Order 1, Rule 8, is not applicable, If this narrow view be accepted the object of the Legislature would be frustrated, and many decisions where leave was granted under, that rule would have wrongly decided. The observations may be confined to cases where the parties seek to recover amounts or property under a contract.
Where a member of an unregistered union of the employees of a firm signed an agreement for & on behalf of the Union Somayya J., in The Travancore National Bank Subsidiary Company Ltd. Vs. Tranabank Union, a partnership firm consisting of the employees of the Travancore National and Quilon Bank Limited, now in liquidation and Another, , held that the other members of the Union cannot be sued and the procedure under Order 1, Rule 8. CPC is not applicable to the case. The facts there were: The Plaintiff was the Travancore National Bank Subsidiary Company, Limited, by ''its Official Liquidator. The said company was carrying on a chit fund business. The first Defendant was styled the Tranabank Union which consisted of the employees of the Travancore National and Qulin Bank, Ltd., and also of the Plaintiff-company. The first Defendant subscribed for two chits and was the successful bidder of both the tickets at the auction held on 4th January, 1938.
A sum of Rs. 1,340 in cash was paid to the first Defendant company and an agreement was executed for the future installments on 10th January, 1938. The agreement was signed by the second Defendant on behalf of the first Defendant. All the members of the Union were sought to be meds liable under the contract. Somayya J., pointed out that under law an - unincorporated body could not be sued as such for recovery of a debt under a contract and that O, 1, R. 8, was inapplicable to such cases. The suit was one for the recovery of the debt due under a contract, and to such a suit it was held Order 1, R. 8, was not applicable. It may be - on which I do not propose to give my definite opinion - that the parties to a contract may not be entitled to invoke the provisions of Order 1, Rule 8, CPC , for recovery of the amount due or for enforcing the liability arising under a contract.
But those decisions have no bearing on a case where the Plaintiffs or the Defendants have community of interests in the subject-matter of the litigation based on custom, grant or otherwise. The decided cases have recognized the applicability of Order 1, R, 8, to such cases Where a villager brought a suit on behalf of himself and bis fellow villagers for declaration of a right of way and for an injunction against the Defendant from obstructing the way or water passage, the Calcutta High Court in Natabar Sasmal and Others Vs. Krishna Chandra Bera and Others, , allowed them to sue in a representative capacity. So too, where the ryot sued the proprietor of a village for himself and on behalf of the other riots for a declaration of their general rights, the Bombay High Court allowed the suit to be filed in a representative capacity. See Ahmedbhoy Habbibhoy v. Balakrishna Mukurid, ILR 19 Bom 391 (E).
Suits by creditors in a representative capacity for setting aside alienations made by a debtor are of common occurrence. Rights of way and communal rights must have had their origin either in grants or in custom. Nonetheless common rights so acquired were allowed to be agitated in a representative suit. So too, the claims of creditors have their origin in a contract and though they might not be able to file suits for recovery of their debts in one action, they were allowed to file a representative suit to remove the cloud cast on the judgment-debtor''s title to his property or to prevent an alienation by him which constitute a common danger to all the creditors. Though in the present case the common interest of the Plaintiffs and the other villagers emanated from a grant, they are not seeking to enforce any liability under the contract but they are only protecting their own interests against the zamindar by asking for a declaration of their right and for other incidental reliefs. I am of opinion that Order 1, Rule 8, is designed to cover such classes of cases arid therefore the Plaintiffs were rightly to invoke the same.
The Civil Revision Petition fails and is dismissed with costs of the Respondents 1 to 4.
Code of Criminal Procedure No. 1361 of 1954 - for the reasons given in C. R. P. No. 1362''of 1954 this Revision petition also is dismissed but without costs.