Plaintiffs’ Suit Fails for Non-Compliance of Order I Rule 8 CPC”: Karnataka High Court Dismisses Appeal in Land Dispute

Without Permission of Court and Public Notice, Suit Cannot Be Treated as Representative Suit — In a crucial verdict High Court of Karnataka dismissed an appeal challenging multiple partition and injunction decrees related to Survey No.73 of Srigandhadakaval village, Bengaluru. The Court, while rejecting the plaintiffs’ claim, strongly held that the suit filed in a socalled representative capacity was not maintainable due to a glaring procedural defect under Order I Rule 8 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. Justice K. Natarajan ruled that “the present suit is not maintainable as a representative suit without following the mandatory procedure under Order I Rule 8 CPC.”  

The Court noted that despite the plaintiffs claiming to represent numerous site owners and purchasers, they failed to obtain prior permission from the Court and did not issue any mandatory public notice, depriving affected persons of an opportunity to participate. The Court further found that the plaintiffs had no right, title, or interest in the suit property and that the entire attempt was to re-agitate issues already concluded by prior judicial proceedings.  

The plaintiffs had filed a suit seeking a declaration that previous decrees passed in O.S.No.542/1970, O.S.No.553/1989, O.S.No.1466/1992, and the connected appeals in RFA Nos.79 & 80 of 2002, were not binding on them. They also sought an injunction, contending that they were in possession of 8 acres 3 guntas of land forming part of the partitioned Survey No.73 and had developed it into a layout with over 150 sites sold to various third parties. They pleaded that they were representing these site holders and, therefore, the suit should be treated as a representative suit under Order I Rule 8 CPC.  

The defendants contested the suit, asserting that the plaintiffs were not lawful representatives and that the suit was barred by limitation and res judicata.

Justice K. Natarajan unambiguously held that the procedure prescribed under Order I Rule 8 CPC was not followed: “The suit filed by the plaintiffs cannot be said to be a representative suit under Order I Rule 8 CPC as neither permission was sought nor public notice was issued.”

 The Court further elaborated: “Even if it is a representative suit, it ought to be mentioned in the cause title of the suit and also filed an application showing the names of all authorized plaintiffs and also calling for any other third party to come and join with the plaintiffs by issuing paper publication, but the suit is filed only by two persons, who claimed to be agreement holders.”

 The Court referred to the decision in Ganga Vishnu v. Nathulal, AIR 1957 Madhya Bharat 173, which had laid down that the mandatory elements of Order I Rule 8 CPC — court permission and notice to interested persons — are not empty formalities but essential to protect absent parties and avoid multiplicity of proceedings.  

The High Court pointed out that the plaintiffs attempted to avoid multiplicity of proceedings by filing a suit in the name of two persons who purported to represent hundreds of site purchasers without seeking permission or issuing notice. The Court commented:  

“Since the plaintiffs themselves do not have any right, title or interest over the schedule property that too under the agreement of sale, no right will be transferred to them.”  

In further clarity, the Court remarked: “Though they have obtained decree, but it cannot be executable as the respondents-defendants already obtained decree prior to agreement by the plaintiffs.”

Other Findings: Limitation and Res Judicata Also Barred the Suit

 The Court held that even otherwise, the plaintiffs’ suit was legally untenable.

“The suit would have been filed within three years as per Articles 58 and 59 of the Limitation Act. The suit was filed after lapse of more than 40 years.”

Further, the Court held: “The plaintiffs cleverly filed the present suit for setting aside the judgments in O.S.No.553/1989 and O.S.No.1466/1992, even though it has attained finality.”  

Rejecting the argument of the plaintiffs regarding fraud in obtaining earlier decrees, the Court found no such evidence and observed that the plaintiffs were barred from re-agitating the issues due to the principle of res judicata.

Concluding the matter, the Court stated: “When the sale deed of the year 1953 is not disputed, the question of challenging the 1963 sale deed does not arise.”  

Upholding the trial court’s findings, the High Court dismissed the appeal.

Date of Judgment: 26^th March 2025