Order 1 Rule 8 CPC applies only to cases in which many persons are jointly interested in obtaining relief, and not to cases in which an individual right has been violated.

( 1 ) THIS Civil Revision Petition under Sec. 115 of the CPC by the plaintiff arises out of and is directed against the order dt. 4-10-1976 on I. A. No. VII in OS. 200 of 1974 on the file of the Principal Munsiff at virajpet, by which the learned Munsiff declined to allow an amendment seeking to include an alternative relief in the suit.

( 2 ) PLAINTIFF brought the suit for a declaration that he was the owner of the land concerned in the proceedings and that, in the alternative, he had acquired a right of way over the same and for a consequential relief of injunction. By I. A. VII he sought an amendment to the said plaint seeking to introduce an alternative relief which is prayed for in terms following:"alternatively it be declared that the road being one set apart for the benefit and use by the residents of the villages round about, the plaintiff as a villager is entitled to make use of the road. "the learned Munsiff declined to grant this amendment on the view that the amendment, if granted, would render the suit one which ought to be brought only as representative action under Rule 8 of Order 1 of CPC. The correctness of this view is challenged here.

( 3 ) SRI Rama Bhat, learned Counsel for the petitioner-plaintiff, urged that the view of the Court below that the amendment would impart to the suit a character which would render it one which ought to be brought in a representative capacity is erroneous; and the suit for the enforcement of the individual right of the plaintiff is perfectly maintainble notwithstanding the fact that similar rights may be vested in or are exercisable by others. He contended that the circumstance that a large number of others also possess similar rights could not make an action by an individual one which ought to be brought only in a represtentative capacity.

( 4 ) IN my opinion, there is considerable force in the contention urged for the petitioner. It is well settled that the provision of Or. 1, R. 8 of the CPC is a purely enabling provision and the rule embodied therein is one of convenience. It entitles, under certain circumstances, only some of the interested persons to bring a suit on behalf of all, but it does not force one to represent many if his action is maintainable without the joinder of those persons. Order 1 Rule 8 CPC applies only to cases in which many persons are jointly interested in obtaining relief, and not to cases in which an individual right has been violated.

( 5 ) TO bring a case within the provisions of Order 1 Rule 8 CPC all the members of a class should have a common interest in a common subject matter and a common grievance and the relief sought should, in its nature, be beneficial to all. As observed in Lingam ramaseshdyya v. Myneni Ramayya, AIR 1957 AP 964. Order 1 Rule 8 is an enabling provision and does not compel any one to represent many if, by himself, he has a right of suit. The rule does not vest a right of suit in a person and if he, by himself, has no right to sue, he cannot proceed to sue on behalf of others by invoking the aid of Order 1 Rule 8. At the same time, the rule does not debar a person from maintaining a suit in his own right in respect of a wrong done to him though the act complained of may also be injurious to others. Rule 8 of Order 1 has been framed in order to save time and expense to ensure a single comprehensive trial of qustions in which a large body of persons is interested and to avoid harassment to parties by a multiplicity of suits. In Durga Dass v. Lt. Col. Banaras Dev, AIR 1972 Jandk 6, the right of the plaintiff to seek the relief of permanent injunction restraining the defendant from encroaching upon the public road lying between the plots of the parties and interfering with his right of passage was held not to be a representative suit so as to attract the provisions of Order 1 Rule 8. The decision in Lingam Ramaseshayya (1) referred to above was relied on.

( 6 ) IN S. K. Murugesa Mudaly v. Baruda Arunagiri Mudaly, 3. AIR 1951 M

Click Here to Read the rest of this document