1996 (2) TMI 592 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues:
1. Maintainability of representative suit without leave of the Court under Order 1 Rule 8 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.
2. Validity of the decree and execution based on the High Court's judgment.
3. Application of the principle of res judicata in the case.

Analysis:

Issue 1: Maintainability of representative suit without leave of the Court under Order 1 Rule 8 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908

The Division Bench of the High Court held that objection to the maintainability of the representative suit without the court's permission under Order 1 Rule 8 of the Code of Civil Procedure is valid. The appellant had filed a suit for eviction against a group, claiming they had no authority to stay in the premises. The Sangh, through its members, raised objections stating the suit was a nullity due to lack of following proper procedures. The trial court dismissed the suit, but the High Court decreed it for ejectment. The key contention was whether the suit was representative in nature without formal court permission.

Issue 2: Validity of the decree and execution based on the High Court's judgment

The appellant argued that the suit was not collusive and every member of the Sangh was bound by the decree. The High Court's decision declaring the decree a nullity due to lack of permission for a representative suit was challenged. The Court observed that the Sangh was properly represented by its President, Manager, and a member, who defended the suit for the benefit of all members. The High Court's decree was final after refusal of special leave by the Supreme Court, making it non-collusive and not a nullity.

Issue 3: Application of the principle of res judicata in the case

The principle of res judicata, as per Section 11 of the Code, prevents re-litigation of issues already decided between the same parties. Explanation VI to Section 11 states that all persons interested in a right litigated by others are deemed to claim under the litigating party. The Court cited previous judgments to support the application of res judicata in the present case, emphasizing that the Sangh was duly represented in previous proceedings, and objections to the execution of the decree were not valid.

In conclusion, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal, directing the respondents to vacate the premises within six months. The decree of ejectment was upheld, emphasizing the binding nature of the decree on all members of the Sangh due to the principle of res judicata.