In order to be granted permission to sue in a representative capacity under Order 1, Rule 8, Civil Procedure Code, the plaintiffs must represent numerous persons having the same interest in the suit and the application must be bona fide.

GOPAL RAO EKBOTE, J.

( 1 ) THIS is a revision petition directed against the order of the Principal District Munsif, Gudivada, given on 22nd December, 1964. The relevant facts are that the petitioners, two in number filed O. S. No. 87 of 1964 on the file of the District Munsif, Gudivada, against the two defendants alleging inter alia that the ist defendant is the Secretary and the and defendant is the President of a Committee consisting of 16 persons constituted for the purpose of collecting donation for the construction of Lingam Veerabhadraiah High School building. It was contended that this committee collected donations from various persons amounting to about a lakh of rupees and constructed the building. They have, however, not rendered the account satisfactorily. The suit, therefore, was instituted against them for accounting.

( 2 ) ALONG with the plaint, an application under Order i Rule 8, Civil Poccdure code was filed praying that the plaintiffs ?hould be permitted to file the suit in a representive capacity.

( 3 ) THIS petition was registed by the defendants. A general notice was published in the village as a result of which nine objectors appeared. They filed representations of 192 members alleging that the defendants have rendered the accounts and that they have no objection to those accounts. The plaintiffs on their side filed a representation on behalf of 29 persons stating that they want the defendants to render accounts.

( 4 ) IT is upon this material that the trial Court refused the plaintiffs request to grant permission mainly on the ground that as many as 192 people out of 284 total number of donors, are satisfied with the correctness of the accounts and since an insignificant number of 29 is opposing, the plaintiffs have no right to get permission under Order 1, rule 8, Civil Procedure Code to represent such an insignificant minority. It is. this view that is challenged in this revision petition.

( 5 ) THIS petition at the first instance came before our learned brother, Satyanarayana Raju, J, who referred it to the Bench. Now under Order i rule 8, Civil Procedure Code 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 on behalf of or for the benefit of all persons so interested. The two conditions which must be satisfied before a permission of the court is sought, are : firstly the parties must be numerous and secondly they must have the same interest. The real question therefore is whether firstly the plaintiffs can claim to represent numerous persons and secondly such numerous persons, have the same interest as the plaintiffs have in the suit. The first essential for the application of rule 8 is that numerous persons should be interested in the suit. The word numerous is not a word of art. It has an ordinary meaning implying a group of persons, such as would make it inconvenient to implead all of them individually. The word is not synonymous with numberless .

( 6 ) THE true scope of the word must depend upon the special facts of each case. Such facts may include not only the nature of controversy but also the volume or quantum of the subject-matter in dispute. The second pre-requisite is that the persons on whose behalf the suit is brought must have the same interest in the suit. It is true that this rule does not require that the whole body on whose behalf the suit is laid should be of the same opinion or should have the same grievance. But it is necessary that the persons on whose behalf a suit is brought must have the same interest or grievance in the suit. The interest must be common to them all or they must have a common grievance which they seek to get redressed. Community of interest is, therefore, an essential condition precedent for bringing a representative suit. If a substantial majority of the members of a body are holding opinion contrary to the opinion of the plaintiffs and it is only a small or

Click Here to Read the rest of this document