Krishnaswami Nayudu, J.-The common questions that arise for consideration in these matters relate to the executability of a decree obtained in a representative suit instituted under Order 1, rule 8, Civil Procedure Code, against persons, who are not eo nomine parties to the decree and whether a representative action can lie in respect of a claim for damages.

The appellants in L.P.A. No. 69 of 1950 as representatives of the ryots of Kothapatti village instituted O.S. No. 681 of 1925 on the file of the District Munsif’s Court, Periyakulam, against the defendants as representatives of the ryots of Kadirnarasingapuram hamlet of Kothapatti. The suit was dismissed. In appeal A.S. No. 82 of 1927, the Subordinate Judge granted a decree on 19th August, 1929, declaring that the Kothapatti ryots are entitled to irrigate their lands through a particular sluice for two days and issuing a permanent injunction res raining ‘he Kadirnarasingapuram ryots from closing the sluice during the said two days and from otherwise preventing the Kothapatti ryots taking water to their lands from the said sluice. The appellants as plaintiffs in the said suit filed an execution petition, No. 236 of 1946 praying for impleading respondents 4 to 13 as defendants and asking for an order of attachment of their properties and for committing hem for conempt to civil jail for disobedience of order of injunction. Respondents 4 to 13 contended that the decree could not be executed against them as they were not parties to the suit. The trial Court accepting their contention rejected the execution petition. In appeal the learned Subordinate Judge held that the decree was executable and in Second Appeal Panchapakesa Sastry, J., reversed the decision of the appellate Court upholding the contention of the respondents 4 to 13 that the decree was not executable against them. The learned Judge however granted leave to appeal.

In C.R.P. No. 417 of 1948 the petitioners who are the plaintiffs in O.S. No. 81 of 1935 on the file of the District Munsif’s Court, Vridhachalam, obained a decree on 4th August, 1936, in a representative capacity on behalf of the villagers of Theevalur against the Adi-Dravidas of Theevalur cheri and had their rights to fishery and grass produce in the village tank declared and obtained also an order of injunction restraining the Adi-Dravidas of Theevalur cheri from inserfering with the right of the plaintiffs to fishery and long grass produce in the suit tank. On the ground of alleged violation of the terms of the decree hey filed M.P. No. 178 of 1946 under Order 39, rule 2, against the respondents for punishing them by committing them to jail for disobedience of the order of permanent injunction. Here again, the respondents contended that as they were not parties to the suit in which the decree was obtained they were not liable to be proceeded against for any disobedience of the decree which contention was accepted by the lower appellate Court.

The point for determination is as to whether the decree for injunction could be enforced against the respondents who are not eo nomine parties to the suit or to the decree. Order 1, rule 8, Civil Procedure Code, lays down the conditions necessary for bringing a representative suit on behalf of or against persons having a common interest. To render a decree in a representative suit to have binding force on the class of persons who are sought to be bound by it, the procedure laid down in Order I, rule 8, has to be strictly followed. A decree obtained in a suit instituted in accordance with the provisions of Order 1, rule 8, will be binding as res judicata on all the members that belong to the class who are sought to be represented. That a decree obtained in such a suit will be binding on the entire class of persons is evident from Explanation VI to section 11, Civil Procedure Code. Explanation VI is as follows:

“Where persons litigate bona fide in respect of a public right or of a private right claimed in common for t

Click Here to Read the rest of this document