JUDGMENT

PUNCHHI, J.:—This appeal is directed against the common judgment and order passed by a learned single Judge of the Madras High Court on September 1, 1978 in Civil Revision Petitions Nos. 1044 & 1045 of 1976 (reported in 1979 (1) Mad LJ 298).

2. The plaintiff-respondent put forth a claim that one Marriappa Gounder had executed a promissory note in his favour for consideration on 14-11-71 in the sum of Rs. 20,000 / -. Apparently, on the last date of limitation, the plaintiff-respondent filed a suit against Marriappa Gounder in the court of the Subordinate Judge, Erode, for recovery of Rs.23,378/- as due up till date and for future interest till recovery, with costs. Marriappa Gounder was impleaded as the sole defendant, but he, however, had died about six weeks earlier on 5-10-74. The summons issued to the defendant were thus returned by the first hearing on 9-1-75 with the remarks that the defendant was dead but the date of his death was not disclosed in those remarks. The plaintiff-respondent took time from the court to take necessary steps to further the suit. On 7-2-75, an application being I. A. 265 / 75 was moved by the plaintiff-respondent under 0. 22, R. 4 of C.P.C. impleading the son, daughter and widow of the deceased as his heirs and legal representatives as defendants Nos. 2 to 4 who are the appellants herein. Counter statement was filed by them to IA 265/75 in which it was pleaded that the suit was non est on account of the death of the Marriappa Gounder, having taken place on 5-10-74. The plaintiff & respondent then moved another application being IA 785 / 75 for change of the provision under which the earlier application IA 265/ 75 had been made from one under O. 22, R. 4 to one under Ss. 151 and 153 of C.P.C. The trial court dismissed both the applications on October 23, 1975 taking the view that since IA 265/75 was filed for substitution of defendants Nos. 2 to 4 as defendants the suit on the basis of the pronote had become barred by time against them and that there was no ground to invoke inherent power under S. 151, C. P.C. In the result, both the applications were dismissed. Both these orders were challenged in two revision petitions before the High Court by the plaintiff-respondent where he emerged successful, the court holding that the plaintiff, in the facts and circumstances, had acted in good faith and thus in view of the proviso to sub-sec. (1) of S. 21 of the Limitation Act 1963 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), it was just to direct that the date of the filing of the suit against the heirs and legal representatives of the deceased defendant shall date-back to the original presentation of the plaint, i.e. on 14-11-74. For the view taken, support was obtained from a decision of this Court in Ram Prasad Dagduram v. Vijay Kumar Motilal, 1966 (Suppl) SCR 188 : AIR 1967 SC 278. In these appeals, the said view of the High Court is under challenge.

3. Learned counsel for the parties cited before us case law bred in various High Courts of the country on the subject of procedural law under the Civil Procedure Code as to whether a suit filed against a dead person is non est and whether that dead person impleaded could be substituted by his heirs and legal representatives or be added as parties to the suit. Having heard them and having pondered over the matter, we are of the opinion that those questions do not seriously arise, when we see the sweep of the relevant provision under the Act, governing the subject, unamended and amended. That provision under the Indian Limitation Act, 1908, was S. 22 which read as follows: -

"22.(1) Effect of substituting or adding new plaintiff or defendant : -Where, after the institution of a suit, a new plaintiff or defendant is substituted or added, the suit shall, as regards him, be deemed to have been instituted when he was so made a party.

(2) Nothing in sub-section (1) shall apply to a case where a party is added or substituted owing to an assignment or devolution of