The main legal point established is that for a representative suit to be maintainable, the plaintiffs must have a common personal interest with the alleged employees and the cause of action must arise within the territorial jurisdiction of the court.

JUDGMENT

Shri S. C. Bagadiya, learned Senior Counsel with Shri Kapil Jain for the petitioner.

Shri J. K. Verma, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 1 and 2.

2. This revision has been filed by the petitioner against the order passed by the District Judge, Harda in Civil Suit No. 39-A/06 dated 10-10-2007 whereby the application filed by the petitioner under Order 7, Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as CPC) for dismissing the plaint has been rejected.

3. It is submitted by the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner that pursuant to the recommendation of the Sub Committee of the United News of India Ltd., respondent No. 3, dated 2-9-2006 in respect of the offers submitted by the petitioner. Respondent No. 7 and respondent No. 8, the Board of Directors of respondent No. 3 approved the recommendations on 2-9-2006 itself and by order dated 25-9-2006 shares worth Rs.32.04 Crores were allotted to the petitioner and on 26-9-2006 new Directors were inducted in the Board of Directors of respondent No. 3 who were nominees of the petitioner. It is submitted that all these proceedings took place in Delhi and therefore the respondent No. 7, being aggrieved, took up proceedings before the Company Board under the provisions of the Companies Act and thereafter in the High Court of Delhi which are pending adjudication and similarly respondent No. 8 filed a suit in the High Court of Delhi which is also pending adjudication. :

4. It is submitted by the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner that the respondent Nos. 1 and 2, claiming themselves to be a Journalist and the State President of the M. P. Shram Jivi Patrakar Sangh (hereinafter referred to as the 'Sangh'), filed a suit before the District Judge, Harda against the aforesaid allotment of shares to the petitioner alleging therein that the suit was filed in a representative capacity on behalf of its members some of whom were employees of respondent No. 3 whose service conditions were adversely effected and, therefore, the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 had a right to file a suit at Harda. The petitioner, in response, filed an application under Order 7, Rule 11 of the Civil Procedure Code assailing the maintainability of the suit on the ground that the respondents had no cause of action to file the suit and on the ground of territorial jurisdiction. The petitioner also raised a ground to the effect that the suit, as filed by respondent No. 2, was not maintainable in view of the provisions of Order 1. Rule 8 and Order 7, Rule 4 of the Civil Procedure Code.

5. The Court below, by the impugned order, has rejected the objections filed by the petitioner on the ground that the suit has been filed by the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 in a representative capacity and, therefore, the objections of the petitioner are misconceived.

6. It is submitted by the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner that the Court below has committed gross error in law in not adjudicating the issue of maintainability of the suit due to lack of territorial jurisdiction in spite of the fact that the petitioner has specifically raised the grounds to this effect in his application. The learned Senior Counsel further submits that the Courts below, having clearly recorded a finding in para-11 to the effect that the plaintiffs had no personal interest in the suit, could not have rejected the application filed by the petitioner on the ground that the suit was in a representative capacity as Order 1, Rule 8 of the Civil Procedure Code specifically requires that a representative suit can be filed by an individual on behalf of several persons only if all of them have the same interest in the suit.

7. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 per contra submits that the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 had filed a suit hi a representative capacity on behalf of some of its members who were also employees of respondent No. 3 and, therefore, no fault can be found with the order of the Court below