Skip to content


Shri Thyagrabrahma Mahotsava Sabha, Governing Body, Thiruvaiyaru Vs. V. Venkatesan - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtChennai High Court
Decided On
Case NumberCivil Revn. Petn. No. 525 of 1970
Judge
Reported inAIR1971Mad274
ActsCode of Civil Procedure (CPC), 1908 - Order 1, Rule 8
AppellantShri Thyagrabrahma Mahotsava Sabha, Governing Body, Thiruvaiyaru
RespondentV. Venkatesan
Excerpt:
- - the learned counsel for the petitioners, however, apprehends that once the court grants permission to the plaintiff-respondent to sue the defendants-petitioners in a representative capacity under order 1, rule 8, the petitioners may not be allowed to contend that the suit is bad for the reason that all the persons elected on 10-1-1969 had not been specifically impleaded as parties to the suit......behalf of the governing body of the sabha.it is true that the lower court has held that under the rules governing the sabha the petitioners have not been authorised to sue or be sued on behalf of the governing body. but for the application of order 1, rule 8, it is not necessary that the persons sued in a representative capacity should have the requisite authority before-hand. order 1, rule 8 will apply to a case where there are numerous persons having the same interest in one suit, one or more of such persons may with the permission of the court sue or be sued on behalf of or for the benefit of all the persons so interested. in this case, it is not in dispute that the petitioners are also persons elected as members of the governing body in the election held on 10th january, 1969. the.....
Judgment:
ORDER

1. In this case the defendants 1 and 2 in O. S. No. 84 of 1969 on the file of the District Munsif of Thiruvaiyaru, challenge the order passed by that court under Order 1, Rule 8, C.P.C. permitting the plaintiff-respondent to sue them in a representative capacity. The suit is one filed by the respondent for declaration that the election of the governing body for Sri Thyagrabrahma Mahotsava Sabha held on 10th January, 1969 is invalid and for an injunction restraining the elected body from functioning. The said suit was filed against defendants 1 and 2 as the Secretaries of the Sabha who were then functioning as such. The petitioners-defendants resisted the suit on various grounds. The substantial ground of defence taken by them was that the suit being one for setting aside the election, all the persons who have been elected on 10th January, 1969 and who would be affected by any adverse decision in the suit should be made parties to the suit and that the suit is not maintainable without impleading them as parties to the suit. They also justified the election conducted on 10th January, 1969 by denying the irregularities pointed out by the respondent in the suit in the conduct of the election.

2. The respondent-plaintiff thereafter filed an application under Order 1, Rule 8 to sue the petitioners in a representative capacity for the entire governing body. The lower court, after hearing the objections from the petitioners, gave the permission sought for. The learned counsel for the petitioners contends that the lower court is in error in granting permission under Order 1, Rule 8 to the plaintiff-respondent to sue them in a representative capacity after having held that the petitioners as Secretaries of the Sabha are not the persons entitled to sue and be sued on behalf of the Sabha or on behalf of the governing body. It is contended that once it is held that they are not the persons entitled to sue and be sued on behalf of the governing body they cannot be sued in the present suit in a representative capacity on behalf of the governing body of the Sabha.

It is true that the lower court has held that under the rules governing the Sabha the petitioners have not been authorised to sue or be sued on behalf of the governing body. But for the application of Order 1, Rule 8, it is not necessary that the persons sued in a representative capacity should have the requisite authority before-hand. Order 1, Rule 8 will apply to a case where there are numerous persons having the same interest in one suit, one or more of such persons may with the permission of the court sue or be sued on behalf of or for the benefit of all the persons so interested. In this case, it is not in dispute that the petitioners are also persons elected as members of the governing body in the election held on 10th January, 1969. The suit being one to set aside the election held on that date, the petitioners have got a common interest along with the other persons elected on that date to the governing body in upholding the validity of the election. The petitioners have got the same interest as other persons elected on that date. The provision of Order 1, Rule 8 squarely applies to the facts of this case.

The learned counsel for the petitioners, however, apprehends that once the court grants permission to the plaintiff-respondent to sue the defendants-petitioners in a representative capacity under Order 1, Rule 8, the petitioners may not be allowed to contend that the suit is bad for the reason that all the persons elected on 10-1-1969 had not been specifically impleaded as parties to the suit. I consider that there is no basis for such an apprehension. It is seen that there is an issue to that effect in the suit and the petitioners are entitled to put forward all their objections and press the issue regarding the maintainability of the suit in the absence of all the parties elected on 10th January, 1969 for trial before the lower court. With these observations, the civil revision petition is dismissed. But in the circumstances no costs.

3. Petition dismissed.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //