Back
M.M.PUNCHHI, K.RAMASWAMY
Karuppaswamy – Appellant
Versus
C. Ramamurthy – Respondent
Key Points: - The appeal challenges a High Court judgment that allowed the plaintiff to implead the legal representatives of a deceased defendant and deemed the suit instituted on the original presentation date, invoking the proviso to Section 21(1) of the Limitation Act, 1963 (!) (!) . - The plaintiff filed a suit against Marriappa Gounder, who had died prior to the suit's institution, without knowledge of his death (!) [1000237430001]. - Summons returned indicating the defendant was dead, but the date of death was not disclosed (!) [1000237430001]. - The plaintiff applied to implead the deceased's heirs and legal representatives under Order 22, Rule 4 of the CPC (!) [1000237430001]. - The trial court dismissed the applications, holding the suit barred by time against the heirs (!) [1000237430001]. - The High Court found the plaintiff acted in good faith and allowed the suit to date back to the original presentation date based on the proviso to Section 21(1) of the Limitation Act, 1963 (!) [1000237430001] (!) . - The proviso to Section 21(1) of the Limitation Act, 1963, allows courts to permit correction of errors made in good faith and deem the suit instituted on an earlier date (!) (!) [1000237430004]. - For the proviso to apply, an averment of good faith mistake must be made, and the court must be satisfied that the motion to include the correct defendant was just and proper [1000237430004]. - The Supreme Court found the High Court's decision correct, upholding the application of the proviso to Section 21(1) of the Limitation Act, 1963, due to the plaintiff's good faith and prompt action [1000237430005][1000237430011].
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. i
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
