Oral Judgment:

1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of the parties.

2. This petition challenges the legality and correctness of the order dated 08.08.2014 passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge thereby rejecting the application of the petitioners filed under Order 1 Rule 8 of C.P.C. seeking leave of the Court to file the suit in representative capacity.

3. Learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that the learned Civil Judge has completely ignored the well settled principle of law while dealing with the application filed under Order 1 Rule 8 of C.P.C. He submits that while considering the essential requirement of the provisions of law of community of interest, the Court must satisfy itself that community of interest has been sufficiently shown. He further submits that it is not necessary that the lis in the suit must involve public interest. In support of his argument, he has relied upon the case of The Chairman, Tamil Nadu Housing Board, Vs. T.N. Ganapathy, AIR 1990 SC 642 [LQ/SC/1990/66] .

4. Learned Senior Counsel for the respondent nos. 20 and 21 submits that basically, this is a suit involving private interest and what has been sought to be raised as a grievance is the alleged wrong entries made in the record of right in respect of the property involved in the suit. He submits that it is not known whether some of the plaintiffs have really any common interest or some of the defendants too, have such common interest or not. Therefore, the impugned order has been rightly passed.

5. Learned Counsel for respondent nos. 1 to 19 and respondent nos. 22 and 23 have submitted the same argument as the argument canvassed by the learned Senior Counsel on behalf of respondent nos. 20 and 21.

6. The provision of Order 1 Rule 8 of C.P.C. indicates that the essential condition for bringing the suit in the representative capacity is that numerous persons must have same interest or community of interest and if, this condition is not satisfied, no leave for filing the suit in representative capacity can be granted. In the case of T.N. Ganapathy (supra), the Honble Apex Court has observed in paragraph 7 thus:

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 Vs. Velandi Goundar, ILR (1955) Mad 335: (AIR 1955 Mad 281 [LQ/MadHC/1954/308] ), 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.

7. It is clear from these observations that although, there are no set principles by which the application of this provision of law can be limited in its scope, the Court has to essentially examine the factor of too many persons having community of interest in the matter.

8. It is also clear that involvement of interest of the public at large as found by the learned Senior Civil Judge is not the condition precedent for application of the said provision. The principle requirement is the sameness of interest on which basis the suit is instituted. The learned Civil Judge was mistaken when she held that the plaintiffs or the petitioners who have filed this suit have not shown any involvement of the public at large. But, there are other grounds as well on which the learned Civil Judge has rejected the application. Upon consideration of all the averments, the learned Civil Judge has rightly found that the sameness of interest has not been sufficiently demonstrated by the petitioners or the plaintiffs. This can be seen from the averments in the plaint as well as the grounds stated in the application. The petitioners have submitted that apart from the petitioners, who are aggrieved by the wrong entries of the record of right, there could be many other persons who could have been in a similar situation as them. The petitioners are not denying that there can be many other persons having the same interest as they. It is here that one has to say that the essential ingredient of community of interest is lacking in the plaint, as there is uncertainty about sameness of interest and also number of persons having same interest. Therefore, the impugned order cannot be seen as perverse or arbitrary. There is no substance in the petition. The petition deserves to be dismissed.

9. The Writ Petition is dismissed. Rule is discharged.

No costs.