AI Drafter 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1990 (2) TMI 309
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....itional amount for settlement of lands with buildings in the colony Ashok Nagar fully described in the plaint. 2. In pursuance of a Housing Scheme the appellant-Board proceeded to settle a large number of residential plots to different groups of applicants including one described as low-income group. A number of allottees, including the plaintiff-respondent, were selected and settlement in their favour was made in 1963.A copy of the document executed separately in respect to the plots is on the record of this case as Exh. B-3, setting out the terms and conditions of the lease. The term as mentioned in the 15th clause, which is quoted below, has been referred to by the parties in support of their respective cases: "15. The Lessor....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ion within a stipulated period under the agreement and the allottees occupied the properties on that basis. After a lapse of more than a decade fresh demands were made in 1975 threatening dispossession in case of non -payment, which led to the filing of the suit. It is stated in the plaint that the cases of all the allottees in low income group of Ashok Nagar made under the lease deeds are identical and the plaintiff was representing them in asking for permanent injunction restraining the Board from enforcing the belated supplementary demands. 3. Besides, objecting to the maintainability of the suit, the defendant-Board pleaded that it was entitled in law to finally determine the correct price for the settlement of the properties even be....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the provisions of Order 1, Rule 8 of the Code of Civil Procedure in any event are not applicable to the case and the suit, as a representative suit, is not maintainable. 6. The second paragraph of clause 15 of the lease deed explicitly directs the Board to assess the final amount on account of the development charges, cost of amenities and buildings, etc. within a period of three years from the date of the allotment, and there does not appear to be any reason for construing the provisions differently. The High Court at considerable length considered this aspect, pointing out the unexplained long delay of about a decade after completion of the constructions, etc. on the part of the Board. There was no difficulty at all in making the fina....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r 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, |LR 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 community of interest to justify....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... a case which now stands clarified by the Explanation introduced by the Code of Civil Procedure (Amendment) Act, 1976, which reads as follows: "Explanation--For the purpose of determining whether the persons who sue or are sued, or defend, have the same interest in one suit, it is not necessary to establish that such persons have the same cause of action as the persons on whose behalf, or for whose benefit, they sue or are sued, or defend the suit, as the case may be." The objects and reasons for the amendment were stated below: "OBJECTS AND REASONS: Clause 55; sub-clause (iv),--Rule 8 of Order 1 deals with representative suits. Under this rule, where there are numerous persons having the same interest in one s....