As a general rule all persons interested in a suit ought to be joined as parties to it, so that the matter involved therein maybe finally adjudicated upon an fresh litigation over the same matters may be avoided. A representative suit is an exception to this rule. Order I rule 8 of IPC provides that when there are Number of persons similarly interested in a suit, one or more of them can, with the permission of court or upon a direction from the court , sue or to be sued on behalf of themselves and others. The plaintiff in a representative suit need not to be obtain the previous consent of the person to whom he seeks to represent.
Thus ' representative suit' may be defined as under.....
A representative suit is a suit filed or against one or more persons on behalf of themselves and others having the same interest in the suit.
The object underlying this provision is really to facilitate the decision of questions in which a large number of person are interested without recourse to the ordinary procedure. Order I rule 8 of the code has been framed in order to save time and expense, to ensure a single comprehensive trial of questions in which numerous persons are interested and avoid harassment to parties by a multiplicity of suits .In cases where the common right or interest of a community or members of an association for large sections is involved, there will be insuperable practical difficulties in the institution of suits under the ordinary procedure, where each individual has to maintain and action by separate suit. To avoid numerous suits being filed or for decision of a common question , Order 1 rule 8 has come to be enacted. The provision therefore should receive liberal interpretation, which will subserve the object of its enactment.
for the application this rule, following conditions must exist...
1. The Parties must be numerous.
2. They must have the same interest in the suit.
3. The permission must have been granted or direction must have been given.
4. Notice must have been issued to the parties to whom it is proposed to represent.
T. N Housing Board vs Ganapathy,1990
In this case residential building we are allotted by the housing board to the applicants who belongs to the low income group. After settlement of price excess demand was made by the board. The allottees challenged the demand by filing suit in a representative capacity. It was contended that such a suit in a representative capacity was not maintainable as separate demand notice were issued against each of the allottees, given rise to separate causes of action. Negativing the Contention the Supreme court held that all of them had the same interest and therefore the suit was maintainable.
In representative the object is to facilitate the decision of questions in which a large number of persons are interested without recourse to ordinary procedure. The main object us to avoid numerous suits being filed for decision of a common question. All persons must have same interest in the suit and permission marks been granted by the code moreover notice must have been granted by the court. Moreover, notice must have been issued to the parties to whom it is proposed to represent in the suit.