Representative suit under Order 1 Rule 8 requires real common interest in right, grievance, and relief, not just similar issues.

A representative suit under Order 1 Rule 8 CPC is maintainable only where the represented persons share a real common interest in the right asserted, the grievance complained of, and the relief sought, not merely similar issues or overlapping facts. The Explanation does not require the same cause of action, but the class must still be genuinely common. Where shareholders of different companies are affected differently, and the relief sought would not benefit all members alike, joinder or impleadment is the proper course. On that basis, the requirements of Order 1 Rule 8 were not met and the leave earlier granted was rightly revoked.

---

---

Issues: Whether leave to institute the suit in a representative capacity under Order 1 Rule 8 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 was validly granted, and whether the non-promoter shareholders had the same interest, common grievance, and beneficial relief required for such representation.

Analysis: The essential condition for a representative suit is not merely similarity of issues or the existence of some supporting persons, but a real commonality of interest in the right asserted, the grievance complained of, and the relief sought. The Explanation to Order 1 Rule 8 shows that sameness of cause of action is not required, but the persons represented must nonetheless form a class whose interest is genuinely common to that of the suing parties. Where the alleged class is made up of shareholders of different companies, affected differently by market movements and by distinct corporate decisions, the claimed grievance is not necessarily common. Relief seeking reinstatement of a particular office-holder and damages would also not be beneficial to all members of the purported class, especially where some may support the impugned corporate action and others may oppose it. In such circumstances, the matter is more appropriately addressed through joinder or impleadment, not by a representative suit.

Conclusion: The requirements of Order 1 Rule 8 were not satisfied, and the leave previously granted was rightly revoked.

Final Conclusion: The representative character of the suit failed because the purported class lacked the requisite common interest and common grievance, so the Chamber Summons succeeded.

Ratio Decidendi: A representative suit under Order 1 Rule 8 lies only where the persons represented share a real common interest in the right, grievance, and relief in the suit, and not merely a similar factual backdrop or overlapping individual claims.

---