Writ Petition No. 1007 of 2025 · The High Court
Case Details
- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:12574 WP No. 1007 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD WRIT PETITION NO. 1007 OF 2025 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: 1. POURA VIHARA (R) A SOCIETY REGISTERED UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF KARNATAKA SOCIETIES REGISTRATION ACT, 1961 HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT SHIVAMOGGA-SHIRALAKOPPA ROAD SHIKARIPURA- 577427 REP. BY ITS PRESENT SECRETARY SRL.S. NAGARAJ. 2. SRI. S. NAGARAJ S/O.SRI.MURIGEPPA AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS R/AT MUDIGOWDARA KERI SHIKARIPURA-577427. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. K N PHANEENDRA, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SRI. SRIKANTH PATIL K., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SRI. B. P. UMASHANKAR S/O.B.PARAMESHWARAPPA AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS R/AT.VENKATESHWARA NILAYA 2ND CROSS, VIDYA NAGARA SHIKARIPURA-577427. Digitally signed by HEMALATHA A Location: HIGH COURTOF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:12574 WP No. 1007 of 2025 2. SRI. D. S.CHANNABASAVARAJA S/O. D. SHIVANANDAPPA AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS R/O. BASAVESHWARA NILAYA 3RD CROSS, SHANTHINAGARA SHIKARIPURA-577427. 3. SRI. YOGISH. H. C. S/O. CHANDRASHEKHARAPPA AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS R/O. SANKALPA NILAYA DODDAPETE, SHIKARIPURA -577427. 4. SRI. H. S. MALLANNARYA S/O. H.SHIVAPPA AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS R/O. NEAR BASAVANNA TEMPLE DODDAPETE, SHIKARIPURA-577427. 5. SRI. ARAVIND. M. SHASTRI S/O. MRUTHYUNJAYA SHASTRI AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS R/O. CHETHANA, 3RD CROSS SHANTHINAGARA, SHIKARIPURA-577427. 6. SRI. PARASHURAMA S/O. OBAIAH AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS R/O. YASHASWI NILAYA MIG 2 NO. 11, KHB PRESS COLONY GOPALA, SHIVMOGGA-577201. 7. SRI. K. N. MANJACHAR S/O. NANJACHAR AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS R/O. GANGADHARESHWARA PRASANNA - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:12574 WP No. 1007 of 2025 BEHIND ANGANAWADI CHANNAKESHAVA NAGARA SHIKARIPURA-577427.
Legal Reasoning
8. SRI. VIJAY SHASTRY. S. J. S/O. JAYADEVA SHASTRY AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS R/O. 2ND CROSS, NEAR PUSHPA CONVENT SHIKARIPURA-577427. 9. SRI.T.M.SRIDHARA S/O. T.MAHADEVAPPA AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS R/O.2ND CROSS, CHANNAKESHAVA NAGARA SHIKARIPURA-577427. 10. SRI. BASAVARAJA.D.L. S/O. LOKESHAPPA AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS R/O. NO. 219, TALUK OFFICE ROAD OPPOSITE AZXC HOSPITAL SHIKARIPURA- 577427. 11. SRI. SRIDHAR HEGDE S/O. A. ANANDA SHETTY AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS R/AT.6TH CROSS, VINAYAKA NAGARA NEAR GUDIGAR SAWMILL SHIKARIPURA- 577427. 12. SRI. SIDDALINGAPPA.M.H. S/O. HOLEBASAPPA.M. AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS R/O.1 CROSS, NEAR PUSHPA SCHOOL SHANTHI NAGARA, SHIKARIPURA- 577427. 13. SRI. H. R. SUNIL S/O. RAJAPPA - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:12574 WP No. 1007 of 2025 AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS R/O. 3RD CROSS, NEAR VINAYAKA RICE MILL VINAYAKA NAGARA, SHIKARIPURA-577427. 14. SRI. KIRAN. H. J. S/O. JAGADEVAPPA AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS R/O.39, HARI HARA NILAYA MANDIPETE JAYANAGARA CIRCLE, SHIVAMOGGA-577201. 15. SRI. T. MAHADEVA ACHAR S/O. THANGAVELA ACHAR AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS R/O. 2ND CROSS, JAYANAGARA SHIKARIPURA-577427. 16. SRI. SRIDHAR KARKI S/O. VENKATESH K.SHET AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS THE PRESIDENT, POURA VIHARA SS ROAD, SHIKARIPURA-577427. 17. SRI. H. S. RAVINDRA S/O. SHANTHAVEERAPPA GOWDA AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS THE SECRETARY, POURA VIHARA SS ROAD, SHIKARIPURA-577427. 18. SRI. S. P. KARIBASAPPA S/O. SHIVAPPA PRASARAD AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS VICE PRESIDENT, POURA VIHARA SS ROAD, SHIKARIPURA-577427. 19. SRI. EKESHWARAPPA ANGADI S/O. NAGAPPA AGED ABOUT 74 YEARS - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:12574 WP No. 1007 of 2025 DIRECTOR, POURA VIHARA (R) SS ROAD, SHIKARIPURA-577427. 20. SRI. P. M. RENUKA SWAMY S/O. P. MOUNESHWARAIAH AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS DIRECTOR, POURA VIHARA (R) SS ROAD, SHIKARIPURA-577427. 21. SRI.H.S.SIDDALINGESH S/O. SANGAPPA AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS DIRECTOR, POURA VIHARA (R) SS ROAD, SHIKARIPURA-577427. 22. SRI.KABADI RAJAPPA S/O. KENCHAPPA KABADI AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS R/O.KAJIKOPLU, BESIDE MALTESH TALKIES SHIKARIPURA-577427. 23. SRI. T. S. MOHAN S/O. T.SIDDAPPA AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS R/O.DODDAKERI SHIKARIPURA-577427. 24. SRI. H. L. GURURAJARAO JAKTAP S/O. LAKSHMIKANTH RAO JAKTAP AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS R/O. MASUR CIRCLE, MANDIPETE SHIKARIPURA-577427. 25. SRI. H. S. MANJUNATH S/O. SHIVAPPA AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS R/O.MANDIPETE, SHIKARIPURA-577427. - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:12574 WP No. 1007 of 2025 26. SRI. M. H. SATISH S/O. MANJAPPA AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS R/O.MUDIGOUDARA KERI SHIKARIPURA-577427. 27. SRI. S. S. KARIBASAPPA S/O. SHIVANANDAPPA AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS R/O. DODDAPETE, SHIKARIPURA-577427. 28. SRI. H. R. MALLIKARJUN S/O. RAJENDRAPPA AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS R/O.HULLINAKATTE, HONNALI ROAD SHIKARIPURA TALUK 577427. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.PRUTHVI WODEYAR., ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R15: NOTICE TO R16 & R18 TO 28 ARE SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED: NOTICE TO R17 IS HELD SUFFICIENT) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH/SET ASIDE THE COMMON ORDER DATED: 12/12/2024 MADE ON IA NO. 1 AND 2 IN OS NO. 346/2024 PASSED BY THE LEARNED I ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, SHIKARIPURA (ANNEXURE-A) AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD ORAL ORDER 1. This writ petition is filed by defendant Nos.1 and 11 under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, challenging the order dated 12.12.2024 passed on IA Nos.1 and 2 in - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:12574 WP No. 1007 of 2025 O.S.No.346/2024 by the I Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Shikaripura, whereby the said applications filed by plaintiff No.10 were allowed. 2. The plaintiffs filed a suit to declare that the undated publication of the results of the election for the defendant No.1 Society for the official years 2024-25 to 2028-29, claiming to have been elected the defendants Nos.8 to 15 and the defendant No.2 as an executive body for the defendant No.1 Society, signed by the Manager of the defendant No.1 Society, as illegal and unenforceable and to set aside the same as it is contrary to bylaws of defendant No.1 Society. 3. Learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners- defendant Nos.1 and 11 has contended that the suit is filed by the plaintiffs challenging the election held to the Society and it is not in respect of the affairs of the Society and hence the plaintiffs cannot invoke the provisions of Order 1 Rule 8 of CPC to file a suit under representative capacity. Hence, the I.A.No.1 filed under Order 1 Rule 8 of - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:12574 WP No. 1007 of 2025 CPC is not maintainable. The Trial Court has erred in allowing the applications. Hence, he sought for allowing
Decision
the writ petition. 4. Learned counsel appearing for plaintiffs-respondents submitted that plaintiffs are the members of defendant No.1-Society. There are 219 members. All the members are aggrieved by the election conducted to the Society for the official year 2024-25 to 2028-29. Some of them have filed suit challenging the election. Since there are 219 members, plaintiff No.10 has filed an application under Order 1 Rule 8 of CPC seeking permission to prosecute the case on representative capacity. The Trial Court after considering this aspect of the matter has rightly allowed the application. There is no error in the order passed by the Trial Court. Hence, he sought for dismissal of the writ petition. 5. The petitioner-defendant No.1 is a Society registered under the Societies Registration Act. There are 219 members in the Society. Out of which, 15 members have - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC:12574 WP No. 1007 of 2025 filed the suit seeking to declare that the undated publication of the results of the election for the defendant No.1 Society for the official years 2024-25 to 2028-29, claiming to have been elected the defendants Nos.8 to 15 and the defendant No.2 as an executive body for the defendant No.1 Society, signed by the Manager of the defendant No.1 Society as illegal and unenforceable and to set aside the same as it is contrary to bylaws of defendant No.1 Society. Since there are 219 members in the Society, the plaintiff No.10 filed an application under Order 1 Rule 8 of CPC seeking permission to prosecute the case on representative capacity. 6. On a plain reading of Order 1 Rule 8 of CPC, it is clear that where there are numerous persons having same interest in one suit, 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. In the case on hand, admittedly, there are 219 members in the society. Therefore, plaintiff - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC:12574 WP No. 1007 of 2025 No.10 filed an application under Order 1 Rule 8 of CPC seeking permission to prosecute the case on representative capacity. 7. The said provision has been considered by a Division Bench of this Court in the case of JANATHA DAL PARTY, BANGALORE vs. THE INDIAN NATIONAL CONGRESS AND OTHERS reported in ILR 2014 Kar. 4726. The relevant portion is extracted below: “POINT NO.3: REPRESENTATIVE SUIT 131. The learned counsel for the appellant further contended that the suit filed in the representative capacity is not in proper form and, therefore, the suit is liable to be dismissed. 132. In the body of the plaint in paragraphs 3 and 4, it is categorically stated that, the plaintiff Nos.1 and 2 are not registered bodies. The number of members of the Congress are numerous, running to several lakhs. The suit is filed for and on behalf of and for the benefit of the entire body of members of the Congress, all of whom have same interest in the subject matter of the suit. It is impracticable to make all persons interested as - 11 - NC: 2025:KHC:12574 WP No. 1007 of 2025 parties to the suit as eo nominee. Hence the plaintiffs seek the permission of the Court to bring the suit on behalf of all the members of the Congress and the KPCC. Similarly, the 1st defendant is an unregistered body with numerous members. Plaintiffs are not aware of the names of all of them. Further, it is also not practicable to implead all the members of the 1st defendant as parties. Second defendant is the President of the Karnataka Unit of the 1st defendant party adequately representing the 1st defendant party as a whole and all its members. A separate application for permission to bring the suit in a representative capacity and to sue the 1st and 2nd defendants in a representative capacity was filed along with the plaint. 133. The learned trial Judge referring to this application filed under Order I Rule 8 CPC in para 14 of the judgment has held that, the said application filed was allowed and plaintiffs were permitted to be sued in representative capacity. Therefore, he has held the suit as maintainable. 134. In this context it is necessary to notice Order I Rule 8 CPC which provides for, one person may sue or defend on behalf of all in same interest. - 12 - NC: 2025:KHC:12574 WP No. 1007 of 2025 135. A representative suit is one which is filed by one or more persons under this rule on behalf of themselves and others having the same interest or a suit allowed to be defended by one or more persons on behalf of themselves and others having the same interest. Rule 8 is an exception to the general rule that all persons interested in a suit ought to be made parties thereto. The object for which this provision is enacted is really 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 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. Thus, to avoid numerous suits being filed for decision of a common question Order I Rule 8 has come to be enacted. It is the existence of a sufficient 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. Where right of communities to own property are recognized, it is necessary that this rule should receive an interpretation to subserve the practical needs of the - 13 - NC: 2025:KHC:12574 WP No. 1007 of 2025 situation. This rule is an enabling provision which entitles one party to represent many who have a common cause of action; but it does not force any one to represent many if his action is maintainable without the joinder of the other persons. It presupposes that each one of the numerous persons by himself has a right of suit. 136. The scope and object of this rule was discussed and explained by the Supreme Court in the case of CHAIRMAN, TAMIL NADU HOUSING BOARD vs T.N.GANAPATHY [AIR 1990 SC 642] as under : - "The provisions of Order 1 of Rule 8 have been included in the Code of Civil Procedure in the public interest so as to avoid multiplicity of litigation. The condition necessary for application of the provision is that the persons on whose behalf the suit is being brought must have the same interest. In other words either the interest must be common or they must have a common grievance which they seek to get redressed. The object for which Order I Rule 8 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 of the 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." - 14 - NC: 2025:KHC:12574 WP No. 1007 of 2025 The provisions of this rule apply only if, (i) the parties are numerous. (ii) they have the same interest, (iii) the necessary permission of the Court is obtained or direction under clause (b) of sub-rule (1) is given, and (iv) notice under sub-rule (2) is given. 137. 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 notice is given by the Court, though at the plaintiff's expense. There are no words in Order I Rule 8 to limit its scope to any particular category of suits or to exclude a suit. It is essential that the parties should have the same interest in the suit. Any member of a community may successfully bring a suit to assert his right in the community property or for protecting such a property. 138. Therefore, in the instant case the plaintiffs as representatives of persons who belong to the Congress/KPCC, in order to protect the property belonging to this Association have brought - 15 - NC: 2025:KHC:12574 WP No. 1007 of 2025 this suit in a representative capacity. They have complied with all the legal requirements stipulated in the said rule and, therefore, the trial Court was justified in holding that there is no infirmity in the framing of the suit. It is validly instituted. In the facts and circumstances set out above, we do not find any infirmity in the said finding recorded by the trial Court. Accordingly, we affirm the same.” 8. Further, the Apex Court in the case of THE CHAIRMAN, T.N.HOUSING BOARD, MADRAS vs. T.N.GANAPATHY reported in AIR 1990 SC 642 has also held that to avoid the multiplicity of litigation, the application filed under Order 1 Rule 8 of CPC can be maintainable. The relevant portion is extracted below: “7. On the question of maintainability of the suit in a representative capacity under Order 1, Rule 8 of the Code of Civil Procedure, it has been contended that since the injury complained of is in regard to demand of money and that too by a separate demand against each of the allottees, giving rise to different causes of action, the Rule 1 has application. The learned counsel proceeded to say that it is not known whether each of the allottees in Ashok Nagar had been even served with - 16 - NC: 2025:KHC:12574 WP No. 1007 of 2025 an additional demand before the suit was filed; and further emphasized that those who had been so served are interested in defeating only the demand individually referable to each of them. Each one of them is not interested in what happens to the others. It is, therefore, suggested that only such of the allottees who have already been served with additional demands are entitled to maintain an action in court, and they also should do it by filing separate suits. We do not find any merit in the argument. 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 words 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, ILR 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 - 17 - NC: 2025:KHC:12574 WP No. 1007 of 2025 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.” 9. Even in a suit filed challenging the election to the office bearers of the Society, unless there is a specific bar under the statute, the application under Order 1 Rule 8 of CPC is maintainable. 10. Considering all these aspects, the trial court has rightly allowed the applications by order dated 12.12.2024 and permitting the plaintiffs to publish the advertisement in regional newspaper ‘Namma Nadu’ on 19.12.2024, fixing the date of appearance of interested persons as 07.01.2025. Pursuant to that, on 07.01.2025, 59 members - 18 - NC: 2025:KHC:12574 WP No. 1007 of 2025 filed applications for appearance as interested persons. On 21.01.2025, 8 members filed applications to implead as parties. Therefore, there is no illegality or error in the order passed by the trial court. The writ petition is devoid of merit. Accordingly, it is dismissed. In view of disposal of the petition, all pending applications stand disposed of. Sd/- (H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD) JUDGE CM LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 31