Order 1 Rule 8 allows one or more persons to sue on behalf of many with a common interest in the subject matter, aimed at preventing multiplicity of litigation.

ORAL ORDER

1. This writ petition is filed by defendant Nos.1 and 11 under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, challenging the order dated 12.12.2024 passed on IA Nos.1 and 2 in O.S.No.346/2024 by the I Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Shikaripura, whereby the said applications filed by plaintiff No.10 were allowed.

2. The plaintiffs filed a suit to declare that the undated publication of the results of the election for the defendant No.1 Society for the official years 2024-25 to 2028-29, claiming to have been elected the defendants Nos.8 to 15 and the defendant No.2 as an executive body for the defendant No.1 Society, signed by the Manager of the defendant No.1 Society, as illegal and unenforceable and to set aside the same as it is contrary to bylaws of defendant No.1 Society.

3. Learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners- defendant Nos.1 and 11 has contended that the suit is filed by the plaintiffs challenging the election held to the Society and it is not in respect of the affairs of the Society and hence the plaintiffs cannot invoke the provisions of Order 1 Rule 8 of CPC to file a suit under representative capacity. Hence, the I.A.No.1 filed under Order 1 Rule 8 of CPC is not maintainable. The Trial Court has erred in allowing the applications. Hence, he sought for allowing the writ petition.

4. Learned counsel appearing for plaintiffs-respondents submitted that plaintiffs are the members of defendant No.1-Society. There are 219 members. All the members are aggrieved by the election conducted to the Society for the official year 2024-25 to 2028-29. Some of them have filed suit challenging the election. Since there are 219 members, plaintiff No.10 has filed an application under Order 1 Rule 8 of CPC seeking permission to prosecute the case on representative capacity. The Trial Court after considering this aspect of the matter has rightly allowed the application. There is no error in the order passed by the Trial Court. Hence, he sought for dismissal of the writ petition.

5. The petitioner-defendant No.1 is a Society registered under the Societies Registration Act. There are 219 members in the Society. Out of which, 15 members have filed the suit seeking to declare that the undated publication of the results of the election for the defendant No.1 Society for the official years 2024-25 to 2028-29, claiming to have been elected the defendants Nos.8 to 15 and the defendant No.2 as an executive body for the defendant No.1 Society, signed by the Manager of the defendant No.1 Society as illegal and unenforceable and to set aside the same as it is contrary to bylaws of defendant No.1 Society. Since there are 219 members in the Society, the plaintiff No.10 filed an application under Order 1 Rule 8 of CPC seeking permission to prosecute the case on representative capacity.

6. On a plain reading of Order 1 Rule 8 of CPC, it is clear that where there are numerous persons having same interest in one suit, one or more of such persons may, with the permission of the court, sue or be sued or may defend such suit, on behalf of, or for the benefit of, all persons so interested. In the case on hand, admittedly, there are 219 members in the society. Therefore, plaintiff No.10 filed an application under Order 1 Rule 8 of CPC seeking permission to prosecute the case on representative capacity.

7. The said provision has been considered by a Division Bench of this Court in the case of JANATHA DAL PARTY, BANGALORE vs. THE INDIAN NATIONAL CONGRESS AND OTHERS reported in ILR 2014 Kar. 4726. The relevant portion is extracted below:

“POINT NO.3: REPRESENTATIVE SUIT

131. The learned counsel for the appellant further contended that the suit filed in the representative capacity is not