Sreedhar Rao, J.

(1) THE respt. No. 1/first plaintiff entered into a written agreement dated 20-2-1987 with the appellant/defet. No. 1 vide Ex. P. 1 for transfer of shares of Navabharath Flange and Allied Industries. The total shares of the company was Sold for face value of Rs. 20,00,000/- under Ex. P. 1. Rs. 10,00,000/- was paid towards the part of the consideration. The balance of Rs. 10,00,000/- was agreed to be payable within six months. In Ex. P. 1 it was also stipulated that if balance of Rs. 10,00,000/- is not paid on or before 30-3-1989, the appellant shall pay interest at 15% p. a. w. e. f. 31-7-1989 till the date of payment.

(2) THE 19th respondent/deft. No: 2 was the Managing Director of the company as on the date of the Ex. P. 1 and consenting witness and guarantor for payment both under exs. P1 and P2. The appellant failed to pay the amount. Hence, the suit was filed by pltfs. No. 1 to 18 on 1-7-92. The first plaintiff had signed the plaint. The pltfs. No. 2 to 18 have not signed the plaint. The plaintiffs made an application to amend the cause title of the plaintiffs to describe pltfs. No, 2 to 18 of being represented by the pltf. No. 1 as their power of attorney. The amendment is allowed and effected vide order of the trial Court dated 1-8-1995.

(3) THE first appellant filed written statement contending that the suit is barred by time. The first plaintiff did not have power of attorney of pltfs. No. 2 to 18 as on the date of Ex.

P. 1 and P. 2. The suit is instituted without the signatures of pltfs. No. 2 to 18. Therefore the institution of the suit is a nullity. It is further stated that, the first plaintiff suppressed

the material facts regarding the bad financial shape of the company and by misrepresenting the facts, the shares are sold. On the date of Ex. P. 1 the company had incurred huge loss, the shares were not even worth the face value. Hence, pray for dismissal of the suit.

(4) THE deft. No. 2 has filed a written statement denying the allegation that he is surety to the transaction and prayed for dismissal of the suit.

(5) THE trial Court on the basis of the oral and documentary evidence upheld the contention of the plaintiff and decreed the suit against in favour of the plaintiff. The first defendant is in appeal.

(6) SRI. A. N. Jayaram, learned Sr. Counsel submitted the following circumstances to assail the judgment and decree of the trial court:-

The plaint initially is not signed by pltfs. No. 2 to 18, The averment in the plaint does not suggest that the pltfs. No. 1 is authorised to prosecute the suit on behalf of pltfs. No. 2 to 18. On the other hand, the plaint suggests that, it is a case of joinder of plaintiffs and joinder of causes of action. Each one of the plaintiffs assert that the suit is instituted in their individual capacity jointly with other plaintiffs. (b) The amendment to the cause title is effected describing first plaintiff as the power of attorney to the pltfs. No. 2 to 18 after three years of the institution of the suit. The amendment effected is after the expiry of the limitation. Hence, there is no valid institution of the suit by pltfs. No. 2 to 18. (c) The agreement at Ex. P. 2 discloses that the amount is to be payable on or before 31-3-89 the suit is filed on 4-7-92 which is beyond the period of limitation. (d) The first plaintiff suppressed the material facts regarding the financial status of the company. The company at the time of Ex. P. 1 was a sick industry. The BIFR proceedings were instituted for rehabilitation. The appellant because of misrepresentation and fraud purchased the shares. In that view the contract under Ex. P. 1 is void.

(7) SRI K. Ramakrishna Bhat, counsel for respts. No. 1 to 18 per contra, relied on the ruling of Privy Council Mohini Mohun Das v. Bungsi Buddan Saha Das in 1890ilr (Vol. xvii) Calcutta Series Page 580, ruling of the bombay High Court in AIR v. Ramachandra dhondo Datar, AIR 1961 Bom LR 292, and the decision of the Patna Hi