Madras HC: Affidavit For Representative Suit Under O.I R.8 CPC Must Strictly Comply With O.III R.2 OS Rules; Leave Cannot Be Granted On Defective Affidavit - 2025-09-01

Madras High Court Sets Aside Leave Granted in AIADMK Suit, Cites Non-Compliance with Procedural Rules for Representative Action

CHENNAI: In a significant ruling on procedural law, a Division Bench of the Madras High Court, comprising Dr. Justice Anita Sumanth and Mr. Justice N. Senthilkumar, has set aside an order that permitted a suit to be filed in a representative capacity against AIADMK leader Shri Edappadi K. Palanichami and others. The court held that the affidavit filed seeking leave to sue on behalf of all primary party members was "acutely wanting" and failed to meet the mandatory requirements of Order I Rule 8 of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC) read with Order III Rule 2 of the Madras High Court Original Side (OS) Rules.

The appeal was filed by Shri Edappadi K. Palanichami challenging a single judge's order dated April 26, 2022, which had allowed two individuals, Shri B. Ramkumar Adityan and Shri K.C. Suren Palanisamy, to sue on behalf of all primary members of the AIADMK.

---

Background of the Dispute

The original suit, filed by two AIADMK members, sought to declare several party resolutions null and void. These resolutions, passed in 2017 and 2021, had amended the party's constitution, notably abolishing the post of General Secretary and creating the dual-leadership posts of Coordinator and Joint Coordinator. The plaintiffs contended that these changes violated the party's basic structure and the rights of primary members.

To pursue the case on behalf of the entire primary membership of the party, the plaintiffs filed an application under Order I Rule 8 of the CPC for leave to sue in a representative capacity. A single judge granted this leave, leading to the present appeal by Shri Palanichami.

---

Arguments Before the Division Bench

Appellant's Contentions (Shri Edappadi K. Palanichami): -

Senior Counsel Mr. Vijay Narayan, representing the appellant, argued that the affidavit filed by the plaintiffs was fundamentally defective and did not comply with the stringent requirements of Order III Rule 2 of the OS Rules. -

He pointed out that the affidavit failed to specify the number (or even an approximate number) of members being represented, their addresses, or any evidence that these members shared the same interest and consented to the suit. -

It was argued that the single judge prematurely directed a public notice without first satisfying himself that a prima facie case for a representative action had been established through a compliant affidavit.

Respondents' Contentions (Original Plaintiffs): -

Senior Counsel Mr. S. Mukunth, for the respondents, first challenged the maintainability of the appeal itself. -

On merits, it was argued that the procedural requirements had been followed, a public notice was issued, and since no objections were received from other party members, it should be presumed that they shared a common interest. -

The respondents asserted their status as valid party members and maintained that a portion of their grievances survived despite subsequent party resolutions passed on July 11, 2022.

---

Court's Analysis: Procedural Rigor is Non-Negotiable

The Division Bench undertook a detailed examination of the procedural framework governing representative suits. The court emphasized that allowing a few individuals to sue on behalf of a numerous, undefined group is an exception to the general rule that all interested parties must be part of a suit. Therefore, the conditions for granting such leave must be strictly met.

The judgment centered on the inadequacy of the affidavit filed by the plaintiffs. The court observed:

"On a careful perusal of the affidavit extracted above, we do not find that it satisfies any of the parameters as required under the Rules... The deficiencies are not merely cosmetic, but fundamental to the maintainability of the application itself."

The Bench highlighted several critical omissions in the affidavit:

1. No details on the number or identity of the persons sought to be represented.

2. No averment that the identified persons were "consensus ad idem on the cause of action."

3. Failure to state the best means of giving notice and the probable cost involved.

The court held that the single judge erred in directing publication without first scrutinizing the affidavit. The purpose of the affidavit under Order III Rule 2 is to provide the court with the necessary information to justify the grant of leave.

"It is only on a careful verification thereof that the Court can come to a conclusion that the petitioner has justified the request for suing or defending in a representative capacity... It is however mandatory that attention be bestowed on the accompanying affidavit as it is only that affidavit that will inform the Court as to the justification or otherwise of the request..."

---

Final Verdict and Its Implications

The Division Bench allowed the appeal, setting aside the single judge's order dated April 26, 2022. The court clarified that the respondents (original plaintiffs) are at liberty to pursue the suit in their individual capacity, but not on behalf of all AIADMK primary members.

This judgment serves as a strong reminder of the procedural sanctity of representative suits. It establishes that courts must rigorously verify compliance with rules designed to protect the interests of the numerous persons who would be bound by the outcome of such litigation. A plaintiff cannot simply claim to represent a large group without providing concrete, verifiable details as mandated by the law.