A Representative Suit is a suit filed by one or more persons on behalf of themselves and

others having the same interest in the suit. It can also be a suit filed by one or more persons
defending one or more persons having the same interest in the suit.
Background: The concept of representative suits is a traditional legal concept having its base
in English and American laws. It is an ancient exception, based upon considerations of
necessity, paramount convenience and the desire to prevent a failure of justice, to the general
rule in equity that all persons materially interested in the subject matter must be made parties
in order that complete justice be done, or to the Chancery rules of compulsory joinder.
Legal Provision: Representative suits can be filed in India under order I, Rule 8 of the Code
of Civil Procedure, 1908. Order I, Rule 8 describes the procedure for filing or defending a
representative suit. Order I, Rule 8: "(1)Where there are numerous persons having the same
interest in one suit,-
(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 such nersons so interested.
(b) the Court may direct that pne or more of such persons may sue or be sued, or may defend
such suit, on behalf of or for the benefit of, all persons so interested.
(2) The Court shall in every case, where a permission or direction is given under sub-rule (1),
at the plaintiff's expense, give notice of the institution of the suit to all persons so interested,
either by personal service, or where by reason of the number of persons or any other cause,
such service is not reasonably practicable by public advertisement, as the Court in each case
may be direct.
(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 to such suit.
Meux vs Maltby, 1 Swanst 277, 36 Eng Reprint 621.

Related titles
(4) No part of the claim in any 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suit shall be withdrawn under sub-rule (3), of Rule 1 of Order XXIII, and no agreement
compromise or satisfaction shall be recorded in any such suit under Rule 3 of that Order,
unless the Court has given, at the plaintiff's expense, notice to all persons so interested in the
manner specified in sub-rule (2).
(5) Where any person suing or defending in any such suit does not proceed with due diligence
in the suit or defence, the Court may substitute in his place any other person having the same
interest in the suit.
Further an explanation has been added to clarify the position that it is not necessary that the
party representing and the parties represented should have the same cause of action as the
expression "same interest" created a doubt in the matter.
(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 the case may be.
Explanation. For the purpose of determining whether the persons who sue or are sued, or
defend, have the same interest in one suit, it is not necessary to establish that such persons
have the same cause of action as the persons on whose behalf, or for wh
ANALYSIS OF RULE 8, ORDER I
Sub-rule (1): There are two main conditions which must be fulfilled by a person to file or
defend a representative suit:
(a) There should be numerous persons, and
(b) they must all have same interest in one suit.

The categories of cases which can come under this rule will depend particularly on the
interpretation of the term "same interest." Permission of the Court must be obtained and the
Court plays a significant role in representative suits. It has been held that such a permission
may be granted even after the institution of the suit, even at the appellate stage.³
The principle consideration that is taken into account by a court is whether there is sufficient
community of interest as between the plaintiffs or the defendants to justify the adoption of the
procedure provided under this rule.
Sub-Clause (b) of sub-rule (1), gives power to the court to suo moto direct one or more such
persons to represent others in suitable cases which satisfy the tests of "numerous persons" and
"same interest". Thus, the initiative in the interest of justice can be taken even by the Court as
the court is expressly authorised by the, legislature to direct filing (by converting) or
prosecuting a suit as a representative suit.

2 Sarkar, Code of Civil Procedure, 1992, Pg 518.

Shantilal Bardichand Mahajan vs. Champalal Radhaji & Ors., AIR 1962 MP 363 (365).
Somnath vs. Tipanna Ramchandra, AIR 1973 Bom 276 (280).

Question of limitation would not arise for getting permission to continue with a suit already
filed as a representative suit. Thus it has been held that in a suit filed in 1982 for declaration
that the election of the President of the society is illegal, application after number of years,
for leave under Order I, Rule 8 was allowed on the ground that question of limitation was not
involved.
The consent of the defendant, on the record is not necessary to enable the Court to permit the
plaintiff to sue the defendant as representing the whole community. It is only just and proper
that in a case where a person's rights are threatened by numerous persons, he should be
permitted to sue them, making a few of them to represent themselves, and the rest. Thus,
where the defendants prevented the plaintiff from removing the trees from his land saying
that they had planted them on behalf of the local inhabitants, the persons who can really be
interested in resisting the suit are the defendants in particular and all other inhabitants of the
vicinity in general. To such a case. Order 1, Rule 8 is well attracted. Some of the persons of
the locality can validly be sued as representatives, it is their choice whether to pursue the
matter or to allow it to go by default.
A notice to public will be advertised and any person interested may apply to the Court to be
made a party to such suit. It is no ground to reject an application under Order I Rule 8, where
a person sought to be made a representative refuses to do so.
Sub-rule (2): makes it necessary for the representative party to give notice of such a suit to all
persons who he thinks will be interested in such a suit either by personal service orl by public
advertisement. It is only when due, to the number of persons or any other cause which the
Court thinks is appropriate (e.g. a fluctuating body) that personal service is not reasonably
practicable, service by public advertisement will be allowed. Notice assumes particular
importance due to the applicability of the principle of res judicata by sub rule (6), to
representative suits. It is the duty of the Courts to see carefully that proper notices are issued
and that notices, where they are published, are printed in such a paper that the persons
interested are likely to read it.

Pramatha Nath Mitter & Ors. vs. Soumen Sen, (1989) 1 (Cal.) 655 (658).
Darshan Singh vs. Ram Pal Singh & Anr., AIR 1961 Punj. 111 (112).
Mohanlal Raghunath Prasad vs. Diwan Lachhman Singh & Anr., AIR 1960 M.P. 288, Dilip
Construction
Company vs. Hindustan Steel Ltd., AIR 1973 MP 216.
8Chandan Lal louro ve Amin Chand AID 1060 Duni 26 (78)
Where, the plaintiffs filed a suit for the possession of the land in a representative capacity
under Order I, Rule 8 for permission to sue on behalf of and for the benefit of all the
members of the institution, and the trial Court in its turn, issued publication as required under
Order I, Rule 8 but nobody came forward after the publication of notice either to oppose the
suit or to be made a party in the case and after a decade had elapsed when the appeal was
pending an objection was raised that the permission as required under Order I, Rule 8 has
not! been granted by the trial Court, it was held that, it would be deemed that the trial Court
by issuing publication under Order I, Rule 8 impliedly granted the permission to the plaintiffs
to sue on behalf of institution and there was no need jto remand the i suit as, {no prejudice
was caused to anybody. In fact, the trial Court has assumed the issuance of such permission
otherwise there, was nothing for that Court to grant such permission expressly."9
Sub-rule (3): permits any such person to come to court to be made party to such a suit.
Permitting the person to sue as a representative of another is a matter of far-reaching effects
as it is likely to determine the rights of those who may not participate as the suit proceeds to
hearing. Such persons are entitled obviously to put before the Court the objections to the
filing of the suit, to the capacity of the representative who seek other to be the plaintiff or
defendant, and even to the merits of the cause which is tried to be put before Court in the
shape of reliefs prayed. It is for the court to decide whether one or more persons out of the
numerous persons for or against
whom the action is brought should be permitted to sue or be sued against.
The Court can pass suitable orders for this purpose. It can allow parties to be arrayed as
formal plaintiffs or defendants if they object to their representative defendant or plaintiff
respectively.
The Court can restrict the class only to consenting members, leaving open the question
relating to others. The notice by public advertisement must disclose the names of persons
permitted to be representative plaintiff or defendant, nature of the suit as. well as the reliefs
claimed therein so as to enable interested persons to get themselves implied as parties."
Sub-rule (4): prohibits abandonment, withdrawal, compromise or agreement of the suit, either
of
the whole or part, until notice to all interested persons has been given by court at the
plaintiff's
"Suraj Prakash & Ors. vs. Jagdish Raj & Ors., AIR 1987 J & K 79 (81).
10 The Municipal Council, Amravati vs. Govind Vishnu Sarnaik & Ors., AIR 1976 Bom. 401
(403).
"Luxminarayan vs. Tehtul Masjid, (1978) 45 Cut LT 141.

expense in the manner prescribed in sub-rule (2). After notice however the representative can
compromise the suit being dominus litis.¹2 Order 23, rule 3B of the C.P.C. also expressly
enacts that no agreement or compromise in a representatives suit shall be entered into without
the leave of the court expressly recorded in the proceedings; and any such agreement or
compromise entered into without the leave of the court so recorded shall be void. This shows
the desire of the legislature to protect the interest of all possible persons who would be
affected by the compromise of a representative suit.
A Sub-rule (5): gives power to the court to substitute the representative with another person
having the same interest if the representative is not acting with due diligence. Sub-rule (5)
provides for transposition of party from category of defendant to plaintiff and vice versa. For
such transposition court has to see that, the party sought to be transposed is not acting with
due diligence. There is no limit of satisfaction and hence to act case has to be judged on its
own merit. Previously transposition was done under inherent power. Under this Rule court
can transpose a defendant to plaintiff and a plaintiff to a defendant. The only pre-requisite for
such transposition is that he is not acting bonafidely, otherwise court's hand is fettered to pass
such an order.
Sub-rule (6): provides that a decree is binding on all persons on whose behalf or for whose
benefit the suit is instituted. In other words this sub-rule makes the principle of res judicata as
enshrined in Section 11 of the Code applicable even to representative suits. It has been held
in several decisions that, it being so, the procedure prescribed by rule 8 must be strictly
followed by the Courts. 14
A decree obtained in a representative suit instituted in accordance with the provisions of
Order I, Rule 8 will be binding as res judicata all the members that belong to the class who
are sought to be represented.¹5 Thus, if notice as prescribed in sub-rule (2) is given, the
decision in a representative suit will be binding on all the members of the class sought to be
represented in that suit, whether they join and take interest in the suit or not. So a decree
made in a
12Amroha vs. Ganga Ram, AIR 1961 All 266(275)(DB).
13 Mulla: The Code of Civil Procedure with Explanatory notes and commentaries, N.M.
Tripathi Pvt. Ltd. Bombay,
1976,Pg. 283.
14 Kodia Goundar & Anr. vs. Velandi Goundar & Ors., AIR 1955 Mad. 281 (283).
15 Supra 2.

representative suit under rule 8 is not only not open to challenge by other members of the
class that were sought to be represented because of the rule of res judicata under section 11
read with Explanation 6 with regard to the public right or private right which can be claimed
by the class of persons, but because of this express provision made in the Code, such a decree
is also binding and actually enforceable by execution against those others not implieded in
the suit but represented by others actually on record, and this express provision makes no
distinction
between a decree of injunction and, other kind of decree in regard to this bitadingness and
executability.
16
Even if the judgment does not specify in the decretal portion that the suit is decreed against
the defendants in their representative capacity, the statutory effect is that it is binding on all
persons for whose benefit the suit was defended. Also, a representative suit does not abate on
the death of the representative as he or she can be substituted by another member of the
plaintiff or defendant.
REPRESENTATIVE SUITS AS AN INPUT FOR ACCESS TO JUSTICE

Following are major advantages of this kind of a suit:

17
(1) Social, Economic and Political Justice Preamble to the Constitution of India enshrines
social, economic and political justice to Indian people."7 Part III of the Constitution gives
fundamental rights to Indian citizens.18 Articles 38 and 39A of the Constitution make it a
duty of the state to provide for equal social economic and political justice to Indian
people. Representative suits can help in bringing about justice and greater access to
justice for the Indian masses.¹9
(2) Greater access to justice: At times we come across poor quality of service or poor
quality of product, government inaction or lawlessness. Normally, as individually
fighting for the same is not economically feasible and possible we ignore the same. But,
if we use the tool of representative suits and if there are other people who have similar
experience, a suit which may be economically unfeasible individually, can become viable
16 Soman v. Appurty, AIR 1988 Kerala 212 (215).
17 The Constitution of India, 1950, Preamble.
18 The Constitution of India, 1950, Articles 12 to 35.
19 The Constitution of India, 1950, Articles 38 & 39A.

due to collectivisation of resources. The need for such a tool is very much there as with
market economies growing in the world, such a tool can be a check on scrupolous people
who may calculate only the individual loss and on that basis continue with their
exploitation and/or illegal practices thinking that no one will take them to the courts of
law.
(3) Collectivisation of resources of a group: In a representative suit resources of a group
are gathered together. It will result in lesser burden on a single person and sound
collectivisation of resources.20 Morally, also when a group is behind a representative he
will be strengthened. They can engage highly competent and innovative lawyers,
examine expert witnesses and see to it that trial is conducted in the best possible manner.
All parties can share the expenses as well as fruits of the litigation.
(4) Economies of time, money and energy: Representative Suits can save time, money and
energy of the plaintiffs, defendants and even the Court, a much needed function. But, for
this provision persons having same interest would be required to file separate suits,
defend them separately and the courts would be required to take separate trials and give
separate judgements. Instead, the courts can try similar suits jointly. But, then in the absence
of a provision of representative suit or its use, similar suits filed by different
parties at different times are tried separately, sometimes even without knowing that a
similar suit has been decided. The notice requirement of a representative suit can do
away with this difficulty as everyone who wants to join has to join. Even if he or she
does not join, the decision will nevertheless be binding on them.
(5) Uniformity of decisions as to persons similarly situated: Representative suit is also in
the interest of judicial discipline and will help to preserve the system of precedents^All
the questions which are similar to the plaintiffs and defendants will be decided at once
and will be binding on the entire class. Further due to the applicability of the principles
of re judicata, the same questions can't be reagitated by mebmers of the same class who
were represented.
(6) Deterrence on illegal behaviour: As, if a class succeeds in getting what it wants, the
effect is going to be wide, far reaching and financially heavy, Representative Suits can
20 Supra 2.

Related titles
well act as deterrent to illegal behaviour of corporations, public officers etc.²1 For
example, if compensation by way of damages is awarded to a class of people who have
suffered due to use of a consumable item, say for e.g., a soap, the manufacturer may have
to pay huge compensation if the product has been widely used'. It will also affect his
credibility and reputation in the market. This will of course have a deterrent effect on
him and others. It will aid the legitimate business enterprises by curtailing illegitimate
competition. The very existence of this device and its regular use can even result in
settlements out of court or through court considering its effects on the defendant.
A

elated titles
CONCLUSION
Where there are numerous persons having same interest in one suit, one or more of such
persons
may sue or be sued on behalf of all persons interested with the permission of the court in
accordance with Order I Rule 8 of CPC.
The provision for "Representative Suits" laid down in the code will save the precious time of
the
Court and cut down expense. The matter can be determined in a single trial. It may be
clarified
that the numerous persons may not have same cause of action or same transactions. What is
required is the same interest between parties to the matter.
The further proceedings of representative suit is dealt within Order I Rule 8 sub-rules (2) to
(6)
of CPC. The Court shall give notice at the expense of the plaintiff to all interested persons.
Any
person who has an interest in the suit and on whose behalf or benefit the suit is instituted or
defended may apply to make himself as a party to such suit. Any abandonment of claim in
such
suit, withdrawal and compromise has to be made known to the parties. The decree passed in a
representative suit shall be binding on all persons.
A suit in the representative capacity could be instituted only when there are numerous
persons having the same interest in the suit. Referring to sub-rule 4 of Order I, Rule 8 CPC,
the learned Judge noticed that there were restrictions in abandoning a claim brought under
Order I, Rule 8 CPC. Similarly, subrule 5 speaks about substituting the parties, if the suit was
not prosecuted with due diligence. Sub-rule 6 makes it clear that a decree passed in a suit
under Order I, Rule 8 CPC shall be binding on persons on whose behalf or for whose benefit
the suit is instituted or defended. It is settled that the WWW.LIVELAW.IN R.S.As.275/12 &
96/15 :5: decrees passed in such suits may even operate as res judicata against the parties
whose interests are represented in the suit. However, the learned Judge noticed that, in the
light of the dictum in Kallara Sukumaran v. Union of India [1987 (1) KLT 226], since a Single
Judge is not competent to refer only a question of law to the Division Bench, referred the
entire case for consideration by a Division Bench. 6. Radha K.S. v. Sadasivan and another
was

To put it in other words, in order to sustain an appeal or cross objection preferred against a
decree in a suit where Order I, Rule 8 CPC publication was made also, such a publication is
peremptory, in the absence of such publication, the suit or cross objection is incompetent.

The law on the point has been stated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in R. Venugopala Naidu
and others v. Venkatarayulu Naidu Charities and others (AIR 1990 SC 444). According to the
Apex Court, a representative suit binds not only the parties named in the suit title, but all
those who are interested in the suit. It is for that reason that explanation VI to Section 11 of
the Code constructively bars by res judicata the entire body of interested persons from re-
agitating the matters directly and substantially in issue in an earlier suit under Section 92 of
the Code
A representative action or class action is comprised mainly under Sections 91, 92 and also
under Order I, Rule 8 of the Code. Section 91 deals with a suit instituted by the Advocate
General or with the leave of the court, by two or more persons, seeking reliefs of
declaration or injunction or such other relief, in the case of a public nuisance or other
wrongful act affecting, or likely to affect the public. Sub-clause (2) to Section 91 makes it
clear that such a suit will lie even independently also. Both the suits under Sections 91(1)(b)
and 92 CPC can be instituted only after obtaining leave of the court. These can generally be
described as representative action. But there are difference in the procedure to be followed
in both these types of actions on the one hand and the one under Order I, Rule 8 CPC on the
other.
From the wordings of Section 91(1)(b) and Section 92 itself it is evident that in the case of a
suit filed under the provisions, leave of the court is a pre-condition for institution. [See: R.M.
Narayana Chettiar and another v. V.N. Lakshmanan Chettiar and others (AIR 1991 SC 221)].
In other words, the plaintiffs should first move the court with an application seeking leave
and that application should precede the institution of the suit meaning that, prior to the
grant of the leave, there cannot be any valid suit, that the court cannot pass interim orders
in the suit before granting leave. [See the decision in Mathew v. Thomas (1982 KLT 493)]. On
the other hand, in the case of a representative action under Order I, Rue 8 CPC, there is no
such precondition. Permission can be granted to the plaintiff or plaintiffs or direction can be
issued to the defendant or defendants under Order I, Rule 8 CPC during the course of
enquiry or trial. Such a permission or direction is not at all a condition precedent for the
institution of the suit. It can be granted at any time, even at the appellate stage, in
appropriate cases.
On the other hand, even if WWW.LIVELAW.IN R.S.As.275/12 & 96/15 :17: permission or
direction sought under Order I, Rule 8 CPC is declined, still the suit can be proceeded with,
the difference being, then the decree passed in such a suit will bind only the parties to the
suit and it will not obtain a representative character.
Again, it is the publication made under sub-rule (2) of Rule 8 of Order I CPC that facilitates
the proceedings to obtain representative character of the suit. No such publication is
mandatory in a suit instituted under Sections 91 and 92 CPC. 23. In this connection, it
requires to be mentioned that, yet another area possible for representative action, as rightly
suggested by the learned WWW.LIVELAW.IN R.S.As.275/12 & 96/15 :18: counsel for the
appellants, is under Section 53 of the Transfer of Property Act, challenging transfer by the
debtor to defraud the creditor. But this is in the realm of a private right in contrast to
proceedings under Sections 91 and 92 of CPC, where proceedings for protecting public
rights are contemplated. In proceedings under Sections 91 and 92 CPC and Section 53 of the
Transfer of Property Act, publication of notice is not a pre-requisite. But in such cases also,
there is no prohibition in effecting publication.
The condition necessary for the maintainability of a representative suit is that the persons
on whose behalf the suit is instituted must have the same interest. The interest must be
common to them all or they must have a common grievance, which they seek to get
redressed. Community of interest is therefore essential and it is a condition precedent for
bringing a representative suit. The right of the claim which they seek to establish in the suit
must be one which is common to them all and each individual among the body of persons
must be interested in the litigation. 26. In order to bind a decree passed in a representative
suit, procedure laid down under Order I, Rule 8 CPC has to be followed. A decree obtained in
a suit instituted in accordance with the provisions of Order I Rule 8 CPC will be binding as res
judicata on all members that belong to the class who are sought to be represented. The
decree obtained in such a suit will be binding on the entire class of persons, which is evident
from Explanation VI to Section 11 CPC, which reads thus:- "Where persons litigate bona fide
in respect of a public right or of a private right claimed in common for themselves and
WWW.LIVELAW.IN R.S.As.275/12 & 96/15 :21: others, all persons interested in such right
shall, for the purposes of this section, be deemed to claim under the persons so litigating."
The decision in a representative suit on any issue will, if the question is raised in any
subsequent proceedings, be binding not only on the parties but also on all the persons who
are interested in such right and who were constructively represented in the previous stage.
Such a result would depend not only on the requirements of Section 11 CPC, but it must be
shown that the persons who represented the others conducted the litigation 'bona fide'.
The general rule is that, all persons whose right to relief in respect of, or arising out of the
same act or transaction or series of acts or transactions is alleged to exist in such persons,
whether jointly or severally or in the alternative and if such person brought separate suits,
any common question of law or fact would arise, may be joined in one suit as plaintiffs.
Similarly, all persons may be joined in one suit as defendants where any right to relief in
respect of, or arising out of the same act or transaction or series of acts or transactions is
alleged to exist against such persons, whether jointly, severally or in the alternative and if
separate suits were brought against such persons, any common question of law or fact
would arise. The above WWW.LIVELAW.IN R.S.As.275/12 & 96/15 :22: statements are in
tune with Order I, Rules 1 and 3 respectively. That is the golden rule. Rule 8 of Order I CPC is
an exception to the general rule. The object of this provision is to facilitate the decision of
questions in which a large body of persons are interested, without recourse to the ordinary
procedure. In cases where the common right or interest of a community or members of
association or large sections is involved, there would be 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 decision of a common question, Order
I, Rule 8 CPC has been incorporated. It is the existence of a community of interest among
the persons on whose behalf or against whom the suit is instituted that should be the
governing factor in deciding whether the procedure under this rule could properly be
adopted or not. This is subject to the essential condition that the interest of a person
concerned has really been represented by the others. If there has been any clash of
interests between the persons concerned and his assumed representative or if the latter
due to collusion or for any other reason neglects out of malintent to defend the case, he
cannot be considered to be a representative.
The power to grant permission to the parties either to sue or be sued in a representative
capacity is conferred on the court and the said power is required to be exercised after being
satisfied as to whether the subject matter of the suit concerns the interest of numerous
persons or not. The court will have to apply its mind and grant permission. It is not an empty
formality. A suit cannot become a representative suit merely because some positive
averments are made in the plaint stating that it is filed on a representative capacity.
Permission of the court under Rule 8 is mandatory. 30. We are sure that, under the scheme,
occasions may arise when more than one publication may be required in a representative
action. First such publication has to be made under sub-rule (2) of Rule 8 of Order I CPC. At
times, if drastic amendments are made in the plaint or written statement, another
publication may become necessary. Everything depends upon the facts and circumstances
of the case. If a plaintiff/defendant who joined the WWW.LIVELAW.IN R.S.As.275/12 &
96/15 :25: plaint in representative capacity decides to abandon the suit, then also, making a
further publication is not out of place. [See the decision in Ulahannan Kurian v. Markose
(2002 (2) KLT 880)]. Similarly, in the event of entering an agreement or compromise also,
sub-rule (2) of Rule 3-B of Order XXIII CPC sounds the necessity of making a publication. But
these publications cannot be equated with a publication in an appeal suit.

It can also be stated that granting permission or issuing direction is a discretionary decision
of the court. Such a discretion should be exercised based on equitable principles known to
law. That is why it is said that granting or refusing permission or issuing direction is not an
empty formality. The courts should be conscious of the implications of a decree being
passed in a representative suit, which will bind not only the parties but also whom the
parties supposedly represent. It may even affect the rights of parties who are yet to born.
[See: Soman and others v. Appootty and others (AIR 1988 Kerala 212)].
n the second judgement, delivered in 1990, the case involved demands for additional payments
issued by the State Housing Board of Tamil Nadu to allottees of housing units. When a
representative suit was instituted by the one of the allottees, the State Government objected to its
maintainability on the ground that a representative suit could not be filed against monetary claims
since the claim amounts would differ from person to person, and that the demand made to each
person would give rise to a separate cause of action, thereby precluding the application of Order
1, Rule 8. 

The Apex Court dismissed these contentions on the ground that there was nothing in Order 1,
Rule 8 which precluded its application to any class of claims or actions. Importantly, the Court
reiterated the position that the fundamental basis of a suit under the provision was a commonality
of interest, which in itself would arise from the nature of the cause of action notwithstanding the
differences in the quantum of claims. In other words, it could either be argued that the cause of
action i.e. the demand for payment, need not be the same for Order 1, Rule 8, or it could be
argued that the cause of action in such a case would be the broad fact that similar demands were
issued to similarly placed parties/individuals. The net result would be the same.

The following extracts from the judgement capture the position with great clarity:

“The provisions of Order 1 of Rule 8 have been included in the Code in the public interest so as
to avoid multiplicity of litigation. The condition necessary for application of the provisions is that
the persons on whose behalf the suit is being brought must have the same interest. In other
word,s either the interest must be common or they must have a common grievances which they
seek to get redressed.
In Kodia Goundar and Another v. Velandi Goundar and others, |LR 1955 Madras 339, a Full
Bench of the Madras High Court observed that on the plain language of Order 1, Rule 8, the
principal requirement to bring a suit within that Rule is the sameness of interest of the numerous
person on whose behalf or for whose benefit the suit is instituted.  The Court, while considering
whether leave under the Rule should be granted or not, should examine whether there is
sufficient community of interest to justify the adoption of the procedure provided under the Rule. 

The object for which this provision is enacted is really to facilitate the decision of questions, in
which a large number of persons are interested, without recourse to the ordinary procedure. The
provision must, therefore, receive an interpretation which will subserve the object for its
enactment. There are no words in the Rule to limit its scope to any particular category of suits or
to exclude a suit in regard to a claim for money or for injunction as the present one.