ivil Appeal No 3002 of 1983
From the Judgment and Order dated 2081982 of the Madras High Court in SA No 83 of 1982
G Ramaswamy NP Mrs Anjani and K Ramkumar for the Appellant
PS Poti and KV Sreekumar for the Respondent
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by SHARMA J
This appeal by special leave arises out of a suit filed by the respondent in representative capacity for permanent injunction against the appellant Tamil Nadu Hous ing Board from demanding and collecting from the allottees any additional amount for settlement of lands with buildings in the colony Ashok Nagar fully described in the plaint
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 1963A 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 agrees to sell the property more particu 274 larly described in the schedule hereunder to the Lessee for such price as the Administrative Officer of the Lessor may at any time in his sole discretion fix and at which time the Administrative Officer of the Lessor is entitled to consider details regarding development charges cost of amenities cost of buildings etc and whether the price of the land acquired under the Land Acquisition Act together with suitable modifications thereto by the local laws has become final by a conclusive adjudication thereon by the concerned Tribunals and Courts
The final decision of the Administrative Officer of the Lessor as to the final price of the property as determined under these presents is con clusive and binding on the Lessee and the Lessee agrees to purchase the property from the Lessor at the said price on the terms and conditions hereinafter mentioned
Excepting the fixation of price with reference to the claim or compensation adjudicated or awarded by courts finally and conclusively with regard to the lands acquired under the scheme the Lessor shall fix the price of the property after taking into consideration the development charges cost of amenities and buildings etc within a period of three years from the date of allotment and which price is subject only to a revision on account of excess compensation if any awarded by courts for the lands as aforesaid Tentative price for the property was fixed subject to a final determination 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 enforc ing the belated supplementary demands
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 settle ment of the properties even belatedly and the challenged demands were perfectly valid
It was stated that the land for the scheme had been acquired under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act and until the final award of the 275 compensation for the acquired lands was made the value of the lands was not capable of being ascertained
The trial court overruled the technical pleas but dismissed the suit on merits
The first appellate court confirmed the decree
The plaintiff filed a second appeal to the Madras High Court and the Housing Board a cross objection against the adverse findings
The High Court while confirming the maintainability of the suit reversed the finding on merits and passed a decree
The impugned demand included the excess compensation awarded by courts for acquisition of the land as also the development charges cost of amenities and buildings etc without splitting up the two demands
The High Court held that it was open to the Board to determine within a reasonable time what portion of the additional demand represented the excess compensation awarded for the lands and to take steps for its realisation after service of a demand notice on the allottee but granted a decree for injunction in regard to the entire demand at the present stage as the two amounts have not been separately mentioned
The learned counsel for the appellant has pressed two points in support of the appeal namely the decision of the High Court on the merits of the dispute is erroneous and that 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
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 final calculation in time and taking steps for recovery of the same
We entirely agree with the view of the High Court The Court was also right in permitting the Board to make a fresh additional demand in regard to the enhancement in the compensation for the acquired lands and the respondents do not have any objection to that part
On the question of maintainability of the suit in a representative capacity under Order 1 Rule 8 of the Code of Civil Procedure it has been contended that since the injury complained of is in regard to 276 demand of money and that too by a separate demand against each  of the allottees giving rise to different causes of action the Rule 1 has application
The learned counsel proceeded to say that it is not known whether each of the allottees in Ashok Nagar had been even served with an addi tional demand before the suit was filed and further empha sised that those who had been so served are interested in defeating only the demand individually referable to each of them
Each one of them is not interested in what happens to the others
It is therefore suggested that only such of the allottees who have already been served with additional demands are entitled to maintain an action in court and they also should do it by filing separate suits
We do not find any merit in the argument
The provisions of Order 1 of Rule 8 have been included in the Code in the public interest so as to avoid multiplicity of litigation
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 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 exam ine 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
Coming to the relevant circumstances in the present case it will be seen that all the allotments in Ashok Nagar were made under the same Scheme and all the relevant facts are common
The basis of the impugned demand of the appel lant is equally applicable to all the allottees and the plea of the plaintiff is available to all of them
The trial court was therefore perfectly right in permitting the plaintiff to proceed under Order 1 Rule 8 of the Code of Civil Procedure
Nobody in this situation can complain of any inconvenience or injustice
On the other hand the appellant is being saved from being 277 involved in unnecessary repeated litigation
It is true that each of the allottees is interested individually in fighting out the demand separately made or going to be made on him and thus separate causes of action arise in the case but that does not make Order 1
Rule 8 inapplicable
Earlier there was some doubt about the Rule covering such 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 inter est 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 suit one or more of them may with the permission of the Court sue or be sued on behalf of all of them
The rule has created a doubt as to whether the party represent ing others should have the same cause of action as the persons represented by him
The rule is being substituted by a new rule and an explanation is being added to clarify that such persons need not have the same cause of action
 There is therefore no doubt that the persons who may be represented in a suit under Order 1 Rule 8 need not have the same cause of action
The trial court in the present case was right in permitting the respondent to sue on behalf of all the allottees of Ashok Nagar
We therefore do not find any merit in this appeal which is dismissed with costs
Before closing however we would like to point out that the plaintiff has represented only those in the low income group in Ashok Nagar who will be governed by this judgment and nothing what has been said or decided in this case is ap plicable to any other group or colony
RNJ Appeal dismissed


Summary:
The Income Tax Appellate TribUnal in appeals preferred before it the revenue held that the entirety of interest paid by a firm to its partner was disallowable under Section 40b of the Income Tax Act without reference to tile inter est that might in turn have been paid by the partner to the firm on his borrowings
On appellants assessees  appli cation under Section 2561 of the Act the Tribunal de clined to state a case and refer a question of law for the opinion of the High Court
The appellants assessees then moved Tax case petitions under Section 2562 of the Act before the High Court
The High Court rejected the applica tions on the view that there was no referable question of law arising out of the appellate order of the Tribunal having regard to its earlier decision in CIT vs OMSS Sankaralinga Nadar  Co  on which the Tribunal had relied
The appellants assessees filed special leave petitions in this Court
Treating the special leave petitions as directed against the main appellate order of the Tribunal and allowing the appeals this Court HELD It is now settled by the pronouncement of this Court in Keshavji Ravji  Co vs CIT  that where two or 269 more transactions on which interest is paid to or received from the partner by the firm are shown to have the element of mutuality and are referable to the funds of the partner ship as such Section 40b should not be so construed as to exclude in quantifying the interest if any paid to a partner by the firm in excess of what was received from the partner
270F Keshavji Ravji  Co   followed
CIT vs OMSS Sankaralinga Nadar  Co  over ruled
In the instant case the appeals were directed against the High Court s orders rejecting the assessee s applica tions under Section 2562 of the Act
However remitting the cases to the High Court In the normal course for neces sary action would be an idle time consuming and avoidable formality
Further as the position is settled on the point raised interests of justice would be served by treating the appeals as directed against the main appellate orders of the Tribunal and remitting the cases to the Tribunal for dispos al
270B 271A B Accordingly the orders of the Tribunal and of the High Court are set aside and the appeals remitted to the Tribu nal for disposal afresh on the extent of disallowance of interest under Section 40b of the Act in the light of pronouncement of this Court in Keshavji Ravji  Co vs CIT 1990 1 SCR243
271E F