Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
M. NAGAPRASANNA, J.
Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd., By Its Vice President –HR, Sri Nagendra Prasad K.V. – Petitioner
Versus
The Commercial Bank Retired Employees Association (REGN. NO. 293/01), Represented By Its Secretary V. Vasudevan, S/o G.V. Venkatraman and Ors. – Respondents
Writ Petition No.13122 of 2025 (GM – CPC)
Decided On : 05-08-2025
ORDER :
M. NAGAPRASANNA, J.
The petitioner/Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited which is the defendant in O.S.No.8105 of 2024 is at the doors of this Court calling in question an order dated 15-02-2025 passed by the XL Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru City allowing I.A.No.1 of 2024 filed under Order I Rule 8 of the CPC , whereby permission is granted to convert the original suit into a representative suit after 21 years of its institution.
2. Heard K.M.Balasubrahmanya, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri P.S. Ranganathan, learned counsel appearing for caveator/respondent No.1.
3. Facts, in brief, germane are as follows: -
The respondents/plaintiffs institute a suit in O.S.No.8105 of 2004 seeking terminal benefits obtaining under the Vysya Bank (Employees’) Pension Regulations, 1995 (‘the Regulations’ for short). The erstwhile Vysya Bank is the present petitioner. 1st plaintiff is Commercial Banks Retired Employees Association(‘Association’ for short) registered under the Tamilnadu Societies Registration Act, 1975 at Chennai. It has instituted the suit claiming that it is voicing individual and collective grievances of pensioners or retirees of the Bank. The 1st plaintiff/Association also claims that it has large number of members i.e., pensioners belonging to different States as members of the Association. The suit comes to be filed on a particular premise. The premise is non-payment or short payment of terminal benefits to the plaintiffs or members of the Association, as the case would be. The trial progressed for over 20 years. In the year 2024, the Association comes up with an application in I.A.No.1 of 2024 under Order I Rule 8 of the CPC seeking conversion of the subject suit into a representative suit, on the ground that all the pensioners who are members of the Association are persons who have voluntarily retired under the Voluntary Retirement Scheme, 2002 and have the same interest. The petitioner/Bank files its objections to the said application. The concerned Court, in terms of its order dated 15-02-2025, allows application, permits conversion of the suit O.S.No.8105 of 2004 into a representative suit under Order I Rule 8 of the CPC . The Bank is before the Court calling the said order in question.
4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would vehemently contend that the application under Order I Rule 8 CPC , which is preferred after 20 years of institution of the suit, is now allowed after 21 years of its filing. The learned counsel would further submit that the only common factor amongst the members of the Association is that they have retired under the Voluntary Retirement Scheme, 2002 but the grievance of every person is different. For a suit to be converted into representative suit what is necessary is a publication, calling upon interested who share common interest to join the proceedings and assist the Court in resolving the dispute. None of these have been followed by the concerned Court. He would contend that the matter was heard completely, reserved for its judgment in the year 2018 itself, without permitting the Court to pass the judgment, repeated applications are preferred and the subject application is the one, which is an abuse of the process of law.
5. Per contra, the learned counsel Sri P.S. Ranganathan appearing for the 1st respondent/plaintiff, the beneficiaries of the order impugned in the subject petition, would defend the order on the score that every pensioner should not be driven to litigation. It is, therefore, the Association in their interest has filed the application seeking conversion of the suit into a representative suit. He would admit that it is filed after a delay of 20 years. But, would submit that the core issue is to be seen and not delay in filing the application. He would seek dismissal of the petition.
6. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made by the respective learned counsel and have perused the material on record.
7. The a
Compliance with procedural requirements under Order 1 Rule 8 CPC is essential for a suit to be treated as a representative action.
Point of law : Appeal suit - There is nothing mandatory that the appellate court should invariably direct publication of notice whenever a decree in a representative suit is challenged. Merely for th....
Duty is cast on the Court to see that interest of those on whose behalf suit is permitted to be instituted is safeguarded.
The Court found that the applicants had common interest and were entitled to get leave for filing the suit.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that for impleadment under Order 1 Rule 8(3) of C.P.C., the applicants must have the same interest as that of the defendants in a representative su....
The requirement of explicit judicial permission is essential for representative suits under Order 1, Rule 8 of the Civil Procedure Code to ensure binding effect on absent parties.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
