 Yeah. Good evening, friends, and we are sorry that the session has been delayed because of some technical glitches. Be that as it may, once you have a good speaker like Justice K.T. Sankaran, and the session being introduced by himself, who is a known resource person, and whose book is likely to be released shortly. I will ask Shyam Padman, a good friend and a brother to introduce the topic who has joined us after a lot of days in persuasion. You will take his session also one day, but be that as it may, they said that good things obviously take time. Or do you, Shyam? Thank you. Thank you because before I get on with my pleasant task, let me congratulate you for carrying on this good work. It's really, really wonderful that you are continuing with it so that it will benefit the legal fraternity and also the Justice Dispensation Machinery. Now, my task is very interesting because for all of you, he might be Justice K.T. Shankaran, but for me, Shankaran is my elder brother in this profession whom I was fortunate to associate from the early days when I entered the profession under the tutelage of my senior C.T.P. Irwin's action. A phenomenally successful lawyer whose knowledge and tradition in law could carry any day, could get any case through any any any tough judge. Then as a judge, he was well-balanced and a wonderful judge. And then in the judicial academy, and in fact, during which period I was exposed to different conferences, classes, etc., wherein I had the privilege to take classes and things like that. And the way in which the judicial academy rose or reached such heights during his stewardship is wonderful. And then as a professor, as a teacher in different colleges, especially in New Orleans, etc., he left an indelible mark in the sense like even today, I'm sure that the students are benefiting with his different classes on the Code of Civil Procedure. And they cherish his classes because the way in which he is... Is there any disruption? I'm sorry. No, no, it's fine, it's fine. Okay. The way in which the classes were being taken all I'd say and to his... And I'm sure that this platform has been experienced, exposed to the classes on earlier occasions as well. And today, I'm sure that it will be no exception because it'll be a wonderful Wednesday evening well spent and we'll all go back home knowing the nuances of representative sooth. I think that being the topic today because it's very interesting because many of us are not very thorough or aware about how it can be, is it just for the plaintiff side, is it for the defendant side or is it available? And for that matter, it is more important because even the new generation laws like Consumer Protection Act, etc., are now saying or rather the new statute of 2019 says that order one, molecular principles are applicable. So without wasting any time and I don't want you to be kept away from the wonderful topic and the wonderful speaker today. Let me not just introduce welcome and request. Just as KT Shankaran sir to kindly get on with the... Expose us to the nuances of the representative sooth, order one, rule eight especially. Thank you. Thank you very much for the privilege. It was an incredible privilege to meet you today. Just a minute. Mr. Shankaran, you have become the host kindly to make us. Thank you. Over to you sir. Thank you Mr. Vikas and Mr. Shampatman. Shampatman is a close friend of mine and the Carroll Agrivation Academy three days programs. I think two such programs were done by him and his team. And we gave him full freedom to select the topic, select the subjects and do it have his own results for us and do it wonderful. Thank you both. And today's subject. See, I think now it is 9.25. I'll finish at 10.30. 10.30 is not a lot of time. I'll finish it. Sir, just camera placement at the center. You can just push it. Thank you. Now it is all right. The photograph up to the chest. Yeah, perfect. Perfect. So when I sit back, our subject is representative soothes. The exact provision in the code of sole procedure dealing with representative soothes is order one, rule eight. Order one, rule eight. And there are some connected provisions to be seen along with us. One is explanation six to section seven. Section seven is as you know, restudigator. Explanation six there too. And also the connected provisions are order 23, rule 11, rule 13 and rule three that we will get when we read it. Now let us see if there are six subsections and an explanation to order one, rule eight. Order one, rule eight representative soothes. What is exactly the term representative soothes? I'll buy an example I will elucidate. See there is a public pathway. Hundreds of people are using that pathway. It has got a particular way. It goes from one village to the other. On either side of the pathway, there are several houses. And in our state, it is houses means everywhere it is houses. Unlike the other states, there are several houses, several compounds. And every person residing nearby uses the pathway to go to the next village. So it is up to their interests that the pathways in a condition it is not it split these not reduced. But some people or several people are interested in encroaching upon portions of the pathway. So it becomes necessary to maintain the width of the pathway throughout and also to restrain them from doing so. Suppose it is one or two persons, they can file the suit. Who are all the parties to the suit? Who are all the plaintiffs? Who are all the defendants? CPC provides it. Who have cause of action? They will be parties to the suit. And who are entitled to get the relief? And against whom the relief will be obtained? They are the defendants. But when there are numerous persons, it is not easy to get all of them. Many of them one may not know or two or more of them may not know. So it is not possible to have their signature, their joining in the plate. And therefore one or two persons or two or more of them or even one person can file the suit. Representing the whole body of persons having the same interest in the subject matter and file the suit against the person or persons who are inclined to approach upon the property. And those that and the plaintiff is set to represent all the persons who are similarly situated as him who have similar interests. And there is a procedure for it. And if that procedure is complete, he has to continue the suit, contact the suit as a dutiful plaintiff with due diligence, bona fides, with no collusion or fraud and complete. Sometimes there may be several persons who are inclined to deny your rights. Many of them not known to you. So in the same suit those persons can be represented by one of them or two or more named persons. So plaintiffs can be in their representative capacity. So also defendants can be in their representative capacity. So one person may institute a suit representing the whole body of persons who are having similar interest. And the suit can be filed against one person representing the whole body of persons who are having similar interest as that of the defendant. Both are possible. Being sued, being the plaintiff or being the defendant. So or being sued, both in their representative capacity. Some suit the plaintiffs may be in their representative capacity and the defendant the name defendant. Sometimes the plaintiff may be one named person, you know many parties and the defendant may be in their representative capacity. In some cases both the plaintiff and the defendant may be having representative capacity. The procedure has to be followed. And then when such a suit is filed the plaintiff has to conduct the suit in a diligent manner. He cannot withdraw, he cannot compromise, he cannot abandon the suit without the permission without following the procedure. And if one and the plaintiff, suppose there is one plaintiff and he is colluding with the defendant another person who is having same interest can come on record, he can make an application and get himself as a plaintiff or a person already there can get the plaintiff transposed even having different interests. That also can be possible. Everything is possible so that a decision binding on all will be obtained and there will be a permanent solution to all. What is the object of order 1-8? Object of order 1-8 to facilitate the decision of questions in which a large body of persons are interested without recourse to the ordinary procedure. In cases where common right or interest of a community or members of an association or large sections is involved there will be insuperable practical difficulty in the institution of suits. Under the ordinary procedure where each individual has to maintain an action by a separate suit to avoid numerous suits being filed for a decision of a common question order 1-8 has become to be enacted. It is an exception to the general rule. Order 1-8 is an exception to the general rule that all persons interested in a suit ought to be made parties there. Order 1-8, order 2, order 4 all those orders in the CPC provide for pleadings. How the plaintiffs may be joined how the defendants may be joined how cause of action should be joined etc. etc. Detailed procedure is there. In one case an Andhra Pradesh case only one High Court judgment I propose to set. There are several High Court judgments I am citing only Supreme Court judgments. But in one High Court judgment AER 1957 Andhra Pradesh 964 L Rama Shesha Ya versus M Rama Ya There is a beautiful paragraph Order 1-8 civil procedure an enabling provision is an enabling provision and does not compel anyone to represent many if by himself he has a right to suit the pathway question There are several plaintiffs who are also interested in protecting the pathway I am the plaintiff I need not bother to institute a suit representing all I will file the suit on my own because I have got a cause of action but I can do the other way also then it will be binding on all it will be very official to all this whole does not best a right of a suit in a person and if he by himself has no right to suit he cannot proceed to suit on behalf of others by invoking the order 1-8 CPC that means a person who is going to represent the suit in the suit several persons he must have a right to file a suit at the same time Order 1-8 CPC does not debar a member of the village community from maintaining a suit on his own right in respect of a wrong done to him though the act complaint of may also be injurious to some other villagers then another principle is that Order 1-8 as it may not apply to suits under section 92 of the photo suit procedure then explanation 6 to section 11 that applies to suits in a representative capacity as well and then let us see the wording and also the ingredients of Order 1-8 because without that it is not possible to explain all aspects I will read subsection 1 where there are numerous persons having the same interest in one suit clause A 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 clause B the court may direct that one or more of such persons may sue or be sued and may defend such suit on behalf of or for the benefit of all persons so interested what is this clause B was introduced in 1926 and before 1976 there were only two subsections which contained the present clause A of subsection 1 and also subsection 3 all other things were introduced in 1976 so what is clause B clause B court may also direct one or more such persons they may file a suit on their own court may direct also that is a new provision what is the meaning of it clause B of subsection 1 is new empowering the court to direct that one or more of such persons may sue or be sued or may defend such suit for and on behalf of all persons so interested that is having the same interest in the subject matter a case for giving such a direction can arise only when permission under clause A is not applied for and obtained the court comes to know that the plaintiff filed a suit on his own that there are several persons several persons may file an application including I am also interested I need to be included such applications may come then the court may know from the defense all those things that there are several persons involved who are having common interests either as that of the plaintiffs or as that of the defendants the court may direct anyone to act in a representative capacity that is clause B introduced in 1976 now subsection 2 we will complete reading this then we will go to some of the decisions the court shall in every case where permission or direction is given under sub rule 1 1 is permitted I file the suit not only on my behalf on behalf of several other persons with the permission of the court the permission of the court is required the other is the court directs me to represent all other persons or somebody else to represent the court shall in every case where permission or direction is given under sub rule 1 and the plaintiff's expense give notice of the institution of the suit to all persons so interested either by personal service or by reason of the number of persons or other cause such service is not reasonably practicable by public advertisement as the court in each case may direct suppose there are thousands of persons who are having same interest as that of the defendant and the defendant is being sued in a representative capacity the court may direct notice how if it is not possible to serve on all of them the court may say in public advertisement in newspapers in such other manner as the court thinks it what is the meaning of the word numerous it was held that it is not synonymous with the word numberless or numerous the meaning is not innumerable numerous it is not numberless it depends on its own facts this was held now this advertisement or such personal service as the court directs is required permission or direction then at the expense of the plaintiff this has to be not so that what is the principle behind it that when a suit is either decreed or dismissed or the defense of hell or the plaintiff's case of hell it is beneficial to all such persons who are having same interest as that of the plaintiff so also it is binding on all persons who are having same interest so they must know that such a suit is going on therefore public notice is given in such manner as the court thinks it so that they are deemed to know they are deemed to know that about it and people will know about it they can come on record if necessary or they can watch the proceeding whether the plaintiff is doing it diligently or not their interests are also being protected or not etc but keeping them in dark a plaintiff cannot represent others having the same interest that is why this publication and notice is provided in sub rule 2 sub rule 3 any person on whose behalf or for whose benefit a suit is instituted or defended under sub rule 1 may apply to the court to be made a party say the example which I gave village party there are hundreds of persons who are beneficiary one person files a suit in their representative capacity on their fathers as well and several persons approach the court we also may be added as party so that we will be knowing what is happening and we will be also helping the entitle to help the plaintiff in doing so we will watch the proceedings and we will produce such evidence as are necessary court may permit then 4 no part of the claim in such suit shall be abandoned under sub rule 1 and no such suit shall be withdrawn under sub rule 3 of rule 1 of order 23 and no agreement and compromise or satisfaction shall be recorded in any such suit under rule 3 of that order that order means order 23 unless the court has given at the plaintiff expense notice to all persons so interested in the manner specified in sub rule 2 so what is order 23 rules 1 and sub rule 1 1 and 1 3 order 23 rule 1 provides for abandonment of suit and withdraw abandonment of plaintiff suppose he is the only person interested there is no representative suit etc I am having a right I file a suit I can abandon the suit nobody can question but I cannot file a suit thereafter another suit thereafter once abandoned abandoned I can withdraw the suit for three reasons which are provided in rule 3 sub rule 3 of order 23 rule 1 court may permit such withdrawal and with the permission of the court another suit can be fined it can be withdrawn with permission or without permission if without permission the suit is withdrawn he cannot file a suit on the same subject matter again if it is withdrawn with such permission that is the difference sub rule 3 of order 23 is compromise between the parties so in a representative suit no part of such suit shall be abandoned or withdrawn and no compromise or agreement or satisfaction shall be recorded unless the court has given at the plaintiff's expense notice to all persons has provided some proof the same procedure has to be followed by the court that means a public notice either individual notice or public notice by advertisement shall be provided so that the people having the same interest whether that of the plaintiff or whether that of the defendant would know what is happening in court so a person has filed the plaintiff file the suit as a plaintiff in a representative capacity is withdrawing there may be reasons he may be colluding or somebody who are affected there by having the same interest may come on record and say that there is pollution or fraud and therefore he is not prosecuting the suit with due diligence I may be permitted to prosecute this the court will permit it so that the people are aware of what is happening in court that is why this procedure of such publication again to be made when there is an attempt to abandon, withdraw or compromise the suit under order 23 sub rule 1 and sub rule 3 5 where any person suing or defending any such suit does not proceed with due diligence in the suit or defense the court may substitute in his place any other person having the same interest in the suit that is to protect the interest of similarly situated persons if it is not diligently being done it can be rectified by allowing another person having the same interest to join as the plaintiff and conduct the suit or as a defendant and to conduct the suit accordingly 6 a decree passed in a suit under this rule shall be binding on all persons on whose behalf or for whose benefit the suit is instituted or defended as that is made so it is binding even without order 1 rule 8 it will be binding under explanation 6 to section 11 what is the wording of explanation 6 to section 11 where persons litigate bona fide in respect of a public right or of a private right claimed in common for themselves and others all persons interested in such rights shall for the purpose of this section be deemed to claim by the person so litigated there is a classic example of such case in Supreme Court which is a suit against RSS represented by the president secretary manager the suit was decreed up to Supreme Court they are SLP dismissed when it was sought to be executed RSS raised a contention that the suit is not a registered body and it is not implanted assets it cannot be implanted all the persons who are members should be implanted or there must be representatives here in that case there was no such representatives there was no such permission there was no publication the procedure in order 1 rule 8 was not followed at all and therefore in Nandiki and not binding on RSS it cannot be executed it came to Supreme Court optimately Supreme Court said that these persons named therein who are office bearers of RSS conducted the suit diligently up to Supreme Court and they were representing the interest of all representatives of RSS and therefore it is binding on RSS explanation 6 to section 11 was applied there is some disturbance you can continue you can continue sir I will just it was held by the Supreme Court that is binding on RSS and it cannot be said that the suit is in decrease in Nandiki and that is the connection between order 1 rule 8 and explanation 6 to section 11 and that was decided that point was decided I will cite all those decisions so a decree passed it is binding then a question arises a suit is decreed suit by the plaintiff in his judicial capacity or as a representative capacity whatever it is while against the defendants in a representative capacity not only the EO Nomini parties has defendants but it will be binding on all persons having the same interest or the body of persons having the same interest as that of the defendants and somebody violates it was not an EO Nomini party the decree is violated whether he can be punished it is a vexed question and there are conflicting decisions ultimately it came to the finding that the only the EO Nomini parties can be punished for violation only those persons who are named there or who come on record with the permission can be punished not others it is binding on all of them but whether there is any willful disobedience or willful violation it will not come under that category and that is the latest view on that part of those decisions also in a recently in 2021 then explanation for the purpose of determining whether the persons who are who so or are sued or defended have the same interest in one so it is not necessary to establish that such persons have the same cause of action be as the persons on whose behalf or who's benefit they sue or are sued or defend as the case we said about common having common having the same interest as that of others whether as plaintiff or as defendants a person instituting a suit in a representative capacity several persons having the same interest and the plaintiff suing in a representative character or the defendant suing in a being sued in a representative character not only representing himself but representing all the whole body of persons who are having the same interest and if the decree pass the written will be binding on all whether as plaintiffs and their binding persons or defendants and the persons who are bound by the decree all are bound by the decree exception is that violation of decree willful violation of injunction there is a different category and therefore it has to be dealt with separately it is binding on all that does not mean that all of them must have the same cause of action cause of action may be different question is whether they are having the same interest cause of action may be different see at a I am finding a I am a beneficiary of the village pathway somebody is encroaching upon my cause of action arose in a particular manner somebody else encroached upon which affects my neighbor he finds his cause of action different but the subject matter is the same interest having both persons having the same interest that is a criterion to be followed now this is in short order 1 to 8 and the procedure has to be followed and even if order 1 to 8 is not adhered to even if a suit is not filed under order 1 to 8 even then in some cases it may bind not only the plaintiffs but persons having the same interest provided the suit was filed in that capacity representing all of them though not under order 1 to 8 but they ventilated a plaintiff A files the suit he ventilated not only his grievance not only his right but also several other persons right having the same interest in the subject matter and the suit is diligently prosecuted no pollution no fraud no negotiating circumstances then sometimes it will be binding as held in RSS case by the Supreme Court that it will be binding not only on the named persons but also persons having the same interest in the subject matter that is what is contained in section 11 explanation 6 so both are not contradictory to each other they are applying different situations and even if a suit is not filed under order 1 to 8 that is not a final word to say that it is not binding on all persons having the same interest there may be cases coming under explanation 6 to section 11 in this case other whole body of persons also will be bound by the decree that is passed by the court and this question was considered in Ayodhya case Ayodhya case Siddhik M through Ellas Siddhik M through Ellas versus Mahant Suresh Das Mahant Suresh Das and others 2020 it was held that it is only when the parties are numerous that a suit can be brought under the provisions of order 1 to 8 that is possible for a suit to be in a representative suit within the meaning of explanation 6 to section 11 although it need not come under order 1 to 8 and therefore need not be brought under the provisions of that order sometimes explanation 6 to section 11 would also do the same purpose explanation 6 to section 11 therefore is not confined to cases covered by order 1 to 8 but would include any litigation in which apart from the rule altogether parties are entitled to represent interested persons other than themselves relying on an AER 1937 Bombay 238 decision AER 1937 Bombay 238 Guru Siddha Pa Guru Basappa Guru Siddha Pa Guru Basappa versus Guru Siddha Pa Chenna Veerappa so this is in Ayodhya case then the other decisions are because of positive time I will cite the decisions I may not explain the whole thing I will just cite it and give the name of the case and the citation 2017 8 SCC 17 8 SCC 830 S&DP Shagha Yogam versus Kerala Atma Vidya Mr. Sharon just make me the host in inventory you have been made the host right sir versus Kerala, Atma Vidya Sangam and others what is that the court has to decide while granting permission to file the suit in Ayurveda S&DP capacity that is decided there next is 2011 4 SCC 374 Bharat Sanjar Nigam Limited versus Ghan Shyam Das and others Ghan Shyam Das and others 3 judgements Justice R.V. Rivendran Justice Sada Shivam Justice AK Padnaik Judgement by Justice AK Padnaik specifically fact was also considered relief to non-applicant circumstances which envisaged it is not necessary following K.I. Shepardies it is not necessary for every person to approach the court for relief and it is the duty or authority to conclude a decision in all similar cases without driving every affected person to court to seek relief and apply here it is not it is repetition the question was the in a given case the court judgement whether similarly situated persons can have the benefit of that judgement is the question and the Supreme Court uses the expression the fence sitters be benefitted a large body of persons in service having the same interest they did not come forward they did not file a repetition they did not join the repetition is not in their capacity so in what circumstances they can make use of it is the question next is AER 2011 Supreme Court 952 Parallel Citation 2011 2 SEC 11 2 SEC 682 Hari Ram Versus Jyothi Prasad and 11 that is encroachment on public street any member of the community may successfully bring a suit to assert his right in the community property in such suit he need not comply with the requirements of order 1284 suppose personally he has got a right he can he can ventilate that right he can have interest of the grievance without representing all other body of persons having the same interest it is not necessary he can do it also the set submission is also found to be without any merit what is his submission that the suit is not brought in a representative capacity in a peace such a content is used the set submission is also found to be without any merit as apart from being a representative suit the suit was filed by an aggrieved person whose right to use the public street of 10 feet width was perpetually affected since affected person himself has filed a suit there the suit cannot be dismissed on the ground of alleged non compliance of the provisions of order 1284 is his preference he might do it or after the 1976 amendment any member of a community may successfully bring a suit to assert his right in the community property or for protecting such property by seeking removal of engrossment therefore and that in such a suit he need not comply with the requirements of order 1284 it was further held that in the case that the suit against the alleged trespass even if it was not a representative suit on behalf of the community would be a suit of this content next is 2000 volume 10 SCC 2000 volume 10 SCC 644 ground panjai of village next word I will say the spelling m-u-n d-h-a-n next word k-h-u-r-d versus MRC question was in a suit filed in a representative capacity some of the persons either joined or some of them originally was there or some of them got on record as in bleeding and some of them died during the pendency suit their legal representatives were not included what will happen if a person dies as a plaintiff or as a defendant is provided in order 22 order 22 holds 234 provide for the different situations where including is necessary where including is not made within the time provided as under article 120 of the limitation act the suit would abate then the abatement can be set aside under article 121 that is as within the period provided in article 121 under order 22 itself and it should be done it should be applied for within 60 days thereafter there is delay delay can be condoned by the court under section 5 of the limitation act that is a procedure in order 22 in a particular case where the representatives would some of the parties died and their legal representatives were not included at all and the decrease passed whether the decrease in identity or whether the decrease can be set aside on that ground that was the question which was considered by the super court in this case it was held that it will not abate because it is a it does not abate upon the death of one of the plaintiffs important paragraph 4 it has been claimed by the appellant ground that the suit stood abated before the high court in as much as 2 out of 3 plaintiffs and experts have said being taken to bring on record their legal representatives here before us those legal representatives have on permission been arrayed and joined as parties in the appeal that is not enough but subject to legal objection it has been maintained on behalf of the appellant that on the left of those 2 plaintiffs appellant before the high court the appeal there abated and on that basis claim that the jetpack in order of the high court be upset not impressed by this army the nature of the suit is the determining factor the suit was filed by the plaintiffs not only by for themselves but as the representatives of the proprietary community owing those lands their shares were undefined and thus the suit could in any event be pursued by other courtiers in instantly one plaintiff survived and was there too to prosecute and now to defend the common interest and the present stage of the litigation no occasion would thus arise of an inconsistent decrease being passed and therefore there is no such abatement the contempt of the appellant was overdue next is AER 1996 Supreme Court 1211 parallel citation 1996 3 SCC 249 K Rameshwamy that is the judge Shinghai Lal Chand Jai Shinghai Lal Chand Jai versus Rajshree Swayam Sivamsa and others this is the case which I said as a prelude explanation says procedure is the handmade to substantive justice the suit was laid against the sangha represented by the manager Mr. So and so the president so and so a practising advocate who is a member now other than headmaster of the school three of them had jointly filed the written statement and then contested the suit with all diligence due diligence and the suit was decreed for eviction it is in that case the RSS in execution contended the decrease in reality the Supreme Court negative that paragraph and discussion in paragraph 8 9 10 11 all the 11 decisions have been referred to 12 13 yes please see the distinction between two cases Ayodhya case as well as RSS distinction between order 1 and explanation 6 to section 11 and the combined effect of it sometimes even without a representative so the result will be having the same they will assume the degree nature of the degree will be having the same result that is because of the application of explanation 6 to section 2 both are different but at the same time they operate in though they operate in different means it is not mutually exclusive it is not conflicted next is 1991-3 SCC 114 Surya Begum and another versus Mohammad Usman there an eviction suit was filed after the death of the original terror against the legal representatives but one of them was omitted to be made a part whether the decrease in value decrease void was considered there the court considered in paragraph 8 paragraph 9 the principle of substantive representation substantial representation that the implanted parties represent the state substantially thereby binding not only on them but all the person who was omitted to be implanted but that omission to implede was not as a result of fraud, pollution whether any other wish-eating circumstance suppose a person dies one of the different states the plaintiff does not know who are all the legal representatives suppose there are 10 legal representatives they are working elsewhere different countries he collected all the necessary details he found that there are 9 legal representatives 10 was left out and a decree was passed against those 9 persons the 10th man the execution states comes forward and says no no no decree is not binding on me I was not made a party and therefore decrease void so far as I am concerned there is no implantment decree cannot be executed the court will say that your interest was substantially represented by the persons who are already on party there is no fraud, pollution or any other wish-eating circumstances so though not made your nominee a party you as well this is the principle of substantial representation we see paragraph 9 this is a long paragraph section 11 explanation 6 to section 11 was also considered the 40 second action between the two now AER 1990 Supreme Court 444 parallel citation 1989 Supplemental 2 6 R. Wenukopala Naidu and others R. Wenukopala Naidu and others Venkata Raelu Naidu Venkata Raelu Naidu Charities and others suit under section 92 is a suit of his special nature for protection of public rights and public trust and charities binds not only the party's name with the suit but all persons who are interested in the suit part of one rule 8 is not necessary there because of the application of section 92 itself AER 1965 Supreme Court 11 65 Supreme Court 11 State of AP versus Gundugola Gundugola Venkata Surya Narayana Garu Garu 2 persons jointly serving notice representatively on government one of them alone filing a suit after the expiry of 2 months section 80 CPC notice was necessary because the government is a part of it so 2 of them give notice but when a suit is filed only one file the suit in a representative the person court granting permission whether the suit is defective tell it is not defective paragraph 12 then the next question considered was whether getting sanction of the authority of the persons interested in the suit is necessary for serving notice under section 80 it is not necessary paragraph 13 whether I suit under order 1 rule 8 representing several persons plaintiff also the plaintiff also having the same interest and he is having a cause of action on his own the person represented by him do not become plaintiffs in the suit they are not unanimous but it will be binding on AER 1964 Supreme Court 107 Ahmad Adam said versus ME MAKHRI suit 192 next is 2012 12 SCC 2012 SCC 750 Sripath Mahado Patil Mahado Patil and others versus chief land and surveyor SIPCO limited CID and others addition of difference after public notice after publication of notice it is immediately filed if there was enough material that the interest of the applicants could be affected and any adverse decision would cause prejudice to them trial court has already exercised the discretion Supreme Court refused to interfere in a view these are the Supreme Court decisions which I refer to and later in 2021 I said about one full bench decision there are several decisions so Kerala I quote another I quote it is not possible to refer to all of them but I may refer to one full bench decision of the Kerala I quote if you get it there are several headings under that if you get time and get the citation you may read it ILR 2021 3 Kerala ILR 2021 3 Kerala 179 Narayanan MV Narayanan MV and others versus Periyadan P-E-R-I Y-A-T-A-N Periyadan Narayanan and others I am not referring to the other high court judgments of the Kerala High Court or any other high court with this I think we can close it still within time and if you have got any and out to be cleared please ask please give illustrated examples of typical cases where applications under order 1 rule 8 can be filed please repeat the question give illustrated examples where applications under order 1 rule 8 can be filed which are the examples some illustrated examples I gave it at the inception itself I gave it he joined somewhat persons having common interest or persons having common interest to raise cattle in a field such cases are rare now or take water from a well common well all having the same interest this is by Gangadhar or to have fishing from a common place all having the same interest right to way right to use a motorable way right to have the width maintained all source persons having the same interest they can file the suit not only for them but for others also having the same interest and it can be filed not only against who are named as but representing those persons those name representing the whole body of persons who are having the same interest to deny the previous yes would you clarify the difference between section 91 of CPC public interest with order 1 rule 8 91 91 92 I said 91 public nuisance and other wrongful act affecting the public that is several persons having the right one or more persons may file the suit against the public nuisance causing public nuisance affecting or likely to affect the public a suit for declaration and injection or for other leave may be appropriate the circumstance the case may be instituted either by the advocate general or with the leave of the court by two or more persons they are having the capacity this also akin to order 1 rule 8 not order 1 rule 8 itself a special procedure is provided for such suit this is really the public interest litigation before the suit it is here in Rathilem municipality case justice krishnaya passed a judgment which was followed by the supreme court in several cases that a sub collector was given a direction to remove public that was under 133 CRPC though not under section 91 but something akin to Rathilem municipality case is that having same nuances but here the procedure is not required as provided because it is a public nuisance nuisance is there for me for others also yes it is a public that is the difference other is private right this is the public yes there are so disputed between two villages ahead of the village filed a suit but not under order 1 rule 8 against the defendant whether the decree is binding yeah there on facts it has to be decided whether the village had really represented the interests of others just like RSS this whether he prosecuted the case with the q deligents whether there was any machating factors then the court has to decide whether explanation 6 to section 11 will not order 1 rule 8 so even if order 1 rule 8 is not resorted to even if no publication is made in some cases it may affect not only himself but others then in one case section I will give the citation section 21 of the Limitation Act provides that if a person is made a part it shall be deemed to have been comments on the date on which he is implanted suppose there are 5 defendants one person is also implanted as the 6th defendant is a suit for declaration 3 years is the period of litigation at the time when the application was made it was beyond 3 years whether it can be done that answer is section 21 effect of substituting or adding new planning where after the institutional suit or new planning for a defendant is substituted or added the suit shall as regards him be deemed to have been instituted when he was so made a part provided that where the court is satisfied that the omission to include a new planning for a defendant was due to a mistake made in good faith it may direct that the suit as regards such planning for defendant shall be deemed to have been instituted on an earlier date so normally when a person is implanted as additional planning the suit as against him shall be deemed to have been instituted on that date and if it is beyond the period of limitation the suit has to go as against him but the exception is that it is due to bona fide mistake the court on tax it has to decide there the court may pass an order the supreme court has said that a separate order is now a case arose of course it is Kerala decision ILR 1983 won Kerala by double six by two evidence just justice Chandrasekhar Menon and justice UN but who later returned as a chief justice case was this some named parties who are there and later after the suit is instituted an application was filed to sue or being sued in a representative capacity some defendants were were to be defend the suit in a representative capacity then a contention was raised those named defendants are not only defending the suit on their behalf but on behalf of others also who are not named to be therefore those persons are to be treated as being made parties subsequent to the period of limitation and therefore the suit is part of it that was the contention who did not accept that and an other like Wordsworth who wrote a judgment not other a judge English case that was not accepted by the Kerala effect of applying the provisions of order one rule 8 CPC is not to add parties to the suit by invoking these provisions by fiction of law it is deemed that innumerable persons are in the position of parties to the suit although actually they are not parties section 21 of the limitation act contemplates substitution or addition after institution of the suit it cannot be said that by merely invoking order one rule 8 any person is substituted or added as a rule therefore hold that section 21 of the limitation is not accepted such a contention was also raised that the ingenuity of the lawyers can be seen yes section 245 of the companies co-tact talks of a class action it is somewhat akin to a representative suit I did not know that one says that a suit was initially filed by two plaintiffs but thereafter there was a conflict of interest between the two plaintiffs can there be two advocates now representing one plaintiff number one and another representing plaintiff number two now there cannot be two plaintiffs cannot be having conflict either the suit must be one must be relegated one must be substituted as a defendant and then the fight must go on two persons having conflicting interest cannot continue the suit as such thank you sir for the insightful session and despite the fact that we have taken the session slightly late and it got later because of the un-varranted circumstances be that as it may on the YouTube it is doing extremely well thank you for even at the late time and your popularity shows the fact that it is very popular thank you sir, thank you very much and just like Shyam was saying you actually explained the entire gamut of order one and I am quite sure that people will understand Shyam has also joined, I will ask Shyam to conclude sir, just one doubt I was thinking certain defendants like society or property society etc unless and until it is filed under order one rule it is not maintainable, a doubt has been expressed how far it is correct that is not correct society can be sued by representing the secretary or someone order one rule it is not necessary it will be winding on correct sir, just so I doubt expressed sir, thank you very much it is always a pleasure hearing you and it has been a wonderful experience again and thank you because for inviting me for one thing and continuing with this good work, thank you thank you before we part for the day by saying good evening part series on appointments etc will be taken by Mr. P.S. Raj Friday, so do stay connected with us at 5.30 on Friday thank you everyone, good night