BANASTHALI VIDYAPITH

CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE-I

ASSIGNMENT-II
MANISH KUMAR V. UNION OF INDIA (2021)
Case Analysis with respect to Order I Rule 8: Representative suits

Tejaswini Rastogi

BA.LLB, VII SEM (4TH YEAR)

ROLL NO. - 1914221

SUBMITTED TO- Ms. Preeti Sengar Ma’am

 Manish Kumar v. Union of India (2021)
WRIT PETITION(C) NO.26 OF 2020

Case Analysis with respect to Order I Rule 8: Representative suits

Introduction

Generally, all persons interested in a suit shall be joined as parties in the suit in order to
adjudicate all the matters for once and avoid any fresh litigation over the same. However,
Rule 8 of Order I of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 is an exception to this rule. Under this
rule, it has been provided that when, there are a number of persons interested similarly in a
suit then one or more of those persons can with the permission or direction of a court, sue or
be sued on behalf of themselves and other such persons. Thus, in a representative suit, the
plaintiff is not required to obtain the consent of persons whom he represents.

A representative suit may be defined as: “A suit filed by or against one or more persons on
behalf of themselves and others having the same interest in the suit.”

Object

This rule has been framed in order to save time and expense of the parties and court. And
ensure a single comprehensive trial of a matter in controversy in which a number of people
are interested as well to not harass the parties with multiplicity of suits. In order to bring a
case within the provisions of Order 1 Rule 8, all the members of a class should have a
common interest in a subject matter and relief sought should be beneficial to all.

Essential elements of a Representative Suit

i. The parties must be numerous;

Numerous does not indicate numberless or innumerable, it indicates a group of persons

sufficiently definite to enable the court to recognize as participants in the suit. The Privy
Council held that a representative suit on behalf of inhabitants of a village regarding village
property or on behalf of the members of the sect, caste, the community is maintainable under
this rule1.

ii. The parties must have similar interest in the suit;

The interest must be common to all, or they must have a common grievance they seek to
redress. It is not necessary that the interest must have arisen from the same transaction. The
explanation clarifies that the person need not have the same cause of action and even if the
persons represented in a suit have different cause of action or transactions, a suit can be filed
when they have the same interest.

iii. The court must have granted the permission or a direction must have been given by
the court;

1
Hasanali v. Mansoorali, AIR 1948 PC
The suit does not become a representative suit until the court grants the permission or the
directions have been given by the court. The proper course is that the permission of the court
must be obtained before the suit is filed.

iv. Notice of representation must have been issued to parties whom it is proposed to
represent in the suit.

All interested persons who would be bound by the decree shall be given notice. Notice may
be in person or public. The Privy Council held that the issue of notice is peremptory, and if it
is not given, the decree will bind only those parties who are on record2.

A decree passed in a representative suit is binding on all persons on whose behalf, or for
whose benefit, such suit is instituted or defended. Explanation VI of section 11 of the Civil
Procedure Code deals with the representative suit. It states that where the representative suit
has been decided, it will operate as res judicata.

Manish Kumar vs Union of India (2021)

In the recent case, the Supreme Court took into account the interplay of Order 1 Rule 8 of the
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, and the Consumer Protection Act, 2019. This was because the
petitioner, in this case, had resorted to these two provisions while laying down his
contentions. The case which concerned amendments brought in the Insolvency and the
Bankruptcy Code, 2016 was being heard by Justice K.M. Joseph.

The explanation provided to Order 1 Rule 8 of the Code reads as, “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 whose benefit, they sue or are sued, or defend
the suit, as the case may be.” Therefore, the interests of all the persons who have the same
interest are protected by means of this provision. The petitioner, in this case, had further
submitted that Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 adopts the principle laid
down by Order 1 Rule 8 of the Code as it provides the manner in which a complaint should
be made. Further, Section 2 (b) (iv) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 mentions that a
complaint “includes one or more consumers, where there are numerous persons having the
same interest.” To conclude, it can be said that the procedure lay down under Order 1 Rule 8
of the Code can be applied in the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 where a situation of more
than one consumer having the same interests arises.

Thus once an application is moved under Order 1 Rule 8 of the Code of 1908, a single
plaintiff or a consumer depending on the facts of the case, in a civil suit or a consumer
complaint respectively, having the same interest, are free to be a part of the proceedings.
Irrespective of the fact whether they join the proceeding or not, a Decree or order, which is
pronounced by the court, will bind all the persons who have the same interest.

2
Kumaravelu Chettiar v. T.P. Ramaswami Ayyar (1933)