1969 Supreme(AP) 33

Andhra Pradesh High Court
Judges : GOPALRAO EKBOLE
Ippiti Gopala Swamy - Appellant
Versus
Bhajana Mandira Vysya Sangham - Respondent
Decided On : 02-21-69

Permission granted to the plaintiff under Order 1, Rule 8 C.P.C., to sue in a representative capacity does not amount to addition of new parties so as to attract the provisions of Section 22 of the Limitation Act.

Headnote:

CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE - ORDER 1 RULE 8 - REPRESENTATIVE SUIT - ADDITION OF NEW PARTIES - LIMITATION ACT, SECTION 22 - WHETHER PERMISSION TO SUE IN A REPRESENTATIVE CAPACITY AMOUNTS TO ADDITION OF NEW PARTIES - WHETHER SUIT BECOMES TIME-BARRED AGAINST OTHER MEMBERS OF THE SANGHAM AND ALSO AGAINST THE MEMBERS WHO WERE ALREADY ON RECORD.

Fact of the Case:

The plaintiff, Bhajana Mandira Vysya Sangham, instituted a suit for recovery of Rs. 339 75 P. through their representatives on the foot of a promissory note executed by the defendant. The defendant contended that the Bhajana Mandira is not registered under the Societies Registration Act and that therefore the suit is not maintainable on behalf of the said association. The trial court granted permission to the members of the Bhajana Mandira to sue on behalf of and for the benefit of themselves and the other members of the Bhajana-Mandira Vysya Sangham (hereinafter referred to as the Sangham). The defendant challenged the maintainability of the suit on the ground that the permission granted to the plaintiff under Order 1, Rule 8 C.P.C., to sue in a representative capacity amounts to addition of new parties on the date when such permission was granted and consequently the provisions of Section 22 (now Section 21) of the Indian Limitation Act are attracted and as a result the suit becomes time-barred not only against the other members of the Sangham but also against the members who were already on record.

Finding of the Court:

The court held that the permission granted to the plaintiff under Order 1, Rule 8 C.P.C., to sue in a representative capacity does not amount to addition of new parties so as to attract the provisions of Section 22 of the Limitation Act. The court further held that even if the members who were already on record are permitted to sue on behalf of themselves and other members of the Sangham under Order 1, Rule 8 C.P.C., it cannot validly be contended that because of such permission, the other members would be deemed to have been added as new parties within the meaning of Section 22 of the Limitation Act.

Issues: 1. Whether the permission granted to the plaintiff under Order 1, Rule 8 C.P.C., to sue in a representative capacity amounts to addition of new parties? 2. Whether the suit becomes time-barred against other members of the Sangham and also against the members who were already on record?

Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the permission granted to the plaintiff under Order 1, Rule 8 C.P.C., to sue in a representative capacity does not amount to addition of new parties so as to attract the provisions of Section 22 of the Limitation Act because: a) Order 1, Rule 8 C.P.C. is an exception to the general rule that all persons interested in a suit should be joined as parties to it. b) The rule only deals with procedure and does not create any right to sue. c) The parties who have obtained permission to sue as representatives are the only parties to the suit. d) The effect of an order under the rule is that the parties who had obtained permission to sue as representatives have the conduct of the suit on behalf of all those they purport to represent. 2. The court further held that even if the members who were already on record are permitted to sue on behalf of themselves and other members of the Sangham under Order 1, Rule 8 C.P.C., it cannot validly be contended that because of such permission, the other members would be deemed to have been added as new parties within the meaning of Section 22 of the Limitation Act because: a) Such permission does not involve an addition of new plaintiffs so as to attract the provisions of Section 22 of the Limitation Act. b) Where a person is effectively represented in the suit by those whose actions bind him in law, the specific addition of his name among the parties after limitation does not amount to the addition of a new party.

Final Decision: The court dismissed the revision petition with costs.