Summary
The Court remanded a society’s land-title suit because the courts had not properly examined its invocation of representative procedure under Order I Rule 8. The defendant’s concession did not dispense with consideration of the threshold issues. Whether a juristic society could invoke that rule, whether the relief was representative, and whether the action could proceed as an ordinary suit were left for the trial court, without any view on merits.
Issues
- Whether the unexamined representative-capacity issue required fresh adjudication despite the defendant’s concession.
- What threshold questions the trial court had to decide.
Held
- A jurisdictional issue going to the root of the case must be examined when brought to the court’s notice at any stage; the defendant’s failure to press the point did not resolve it. (¶ 17–20)
- The trial court needed to consider whether “person” in Order I Rule 8 included a juristic society, whether the pleaded facts and relief satisfied representative-suit requirements, and, failing that, whether the ownership dispute could be tried as a regular suit in the plaintiff’s own capacity. These questions were not decided by the Supreme Court. (¶ 21–23)
- Because no court had properly discussed or determined those material issues, all decrees were set aside and the suit restored for fresh trial according to their answers. Merits were left entirely open. (¶ 23–27)
Result
Appeal allowed; all lower-court decrees set aside and suit remanded for fresh decision, with parties to appear on 3 October 2017 and disposal within one year.