SUDHIR JOSHI Vs. SHANTA JOSHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This application has been filed by Plaintiff No.8 in the Plaint for himself and on behalf of Plaintiff No.1 who has allegedly executed a Power of Attorney in favour of Plaintiff No.8. The application states that plaintiffs No.2 to 17 have decided that the plaintiff No.1 will represent them for their benefit in instituting the present suit for partition against defendants, on their behalf. However, this is only a self serving ipse dixit. There is no evidence on record to substantiate it. Learned counsel for the Plaintiff relies on Kapoor Group & another vs. Supreme Court of India Bar Association, 2002 III AD(Delhi) 490 and, in particular, to the following paragraph:

(2.) These observations, in fact, militate against the arguments put forward by learned counsel for the Plaintiff. No doubt, an application has been filed under Order I Rule 8 but no circumstances, whatsoever, have been disclosed in favour of this Court exercising its powers under the said provision. In the present case, Plaintiff No.1 without impleading any other persons, states that he has authority to represent all other persons who have an identical interest with him. Keeping in perspective the Plaint as it is presently drafted, the several other Plaintiffs (who are fifteen in number out of a total of seventeen) should have either executed a Power of Attorney in favour of Plaintiff No.8 or ought to have subscribed their signatures to the Plaint as the case may be. This is in fact what has happened in the case of Plaintiff No.1 in that he has executed a Power of Attorney in favour of Plaintiff No.8.

(3.) My attention has been drawn to The Chairman, Tamil Nadu Housing Board, Madras v. T.N. Ganapathy, AIR 1990 SC 642 in which it has been observed that provision of Order I Rule 8 have been included in the Code in the public interest so as to avoid multiplicity of litigation. In the present situation, since partition of property is in question, fifteen Plaintiffs who have not either subscribed their signatures to the Plaint or have executed Power of Attorneys in favour of any of the other Plaintiffs, could have been arrayed as Defendants. There would have been no question of multiplicity of proceedings. What I see, therefore, is a possible mischief in that the Court will not be in a position to know the views and stance of these un-represented Plaintiffs unless they are personally summoned to the Court. Neither of these decisions, therefore, advance the case of the Plaintiffs.