Representative actions can be brought against parties for claims of money or debt, provided the conditions in Order I R.8 CPC are met. S.21 of the Limitation Act was not attracted in this case, and the suit was not barred by limitation.

1. This appeal is filed by the plaintiff in O. S.190 of 1975 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Trichur against the dismissal of the suit with costs. The suit was originally filed against nine defendants.

2. Innumerable cultivators are cultivating fields in Pallipuram Alappat Kadum Krishi Padavu in Trichur District. It appears, they formed a padavu committee to attend to the major items of work regarding the padavu. The plaintiff advanced Rs. 17,000/- to the committee on four different occasions as per an oral karar whereunder the amount with interest at 121/2 percent per annum was agreed to be repaid. Rs. 4,000/-was repaid on two different occasions and for the balance amount due the suit was filed, since" Ext. A2 notice sent to the members of the committee was of no avail. Defendants 1 to 9 are the President, Secretary, Treasurer and members of the committee respectively. They are dealing with the properties of the committee and are liable to repay the amounts due. Plaintiff is entitled to recover the amount due from out of the properties of the committee and if found necessary, from the defendants and their properties. On the death of the Ist defendant, defendants 10 to 12 were impleaded as his legal representatives.

3. Defendants 1 to 9 filed a written statement admitting the transactions set up but contending that the amount as claimed in the plaint was not due but that only a lesser amount was due. They also claimed set off of certain amounts said to be due from the plaintiff. The committee of which the defendants are members represent a large number of cultivators and therefore the suit as laid was not maintainable in law. Defendants also claimed benefit under Act 30 of 1975.

4. In view of the contention in the written statement regarding the maintainability of the suit, plaintiff filed an application under Order I R.8 CPC. to continue the suit against the defendants in their representative capacity, that is, as representing all the cultivators in the padavu and the petition was allowed and necessary publication was effected. The 2nd defendant filed an additional written statement contending that the suit was not properly framed under Order I R.8 CPC. and the suit was barred by limitation.

5. The trial court held that the provisions of Order I R.8 CPC. have been complied with, that the amount claimed in the plaint was actually due and that the suit was barred by limitation in so far as the cultivators of the padavu except defendants 1 to 9 were concerned. The trial court also took the view that therefore a decree cannot be granted in favour of the plaintiff since defendants cannot represent all the cultivators and the persons liable to pay to the plaintiff were the cultivators of the padavu. Accordingly, the suit was dismissed with costs of the defendants. This decree is challenged in the present appeal.

6. Pending appeal, the first respondent died and her legal representatives have been brought on record in time. The 6th respondent died on 12-1-1979 and C. M. P. 15205 of 1982 was filed only on 21-7-1982 to implead his legal representatives. C. M. P. 15206 of 1982 was filed to set aside the abatement and C. M. P. 15207 of 1982 was filed to condone the delay in filing C. M. P. 15206 of 1982. These applications have been dismissed.

7. Learned counsel for the respondents raised a preliminary objection to the effect that since the legal representatives of the 6th respondent have not been impleaded, the appeal has abated cot only against the 6th respondent but as a whole. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the suit being a representative one, it was unnecessary to implead the legal representatives of a deceased defendant and the death of such a representative party cannot lead to abatement of the appeal to any extent.

8. Supreme Court considered this question in Charan Singh and another v. Darshan Singh and others (AIR. 1975 SC. 371). That was a case where the plaintiffs represented innumerable other