Back
1987 Supreme(Raj) 505
RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
Jagdish Sharan Verma, J.
Chhagan Lal - Appellant
Versus
Megh Raj and Others - Respondent
S.B. Civil Revision No. 45 of 1983.
Decided On : 19-02-1987
For the Petitioner:Mr. Kewal Chand, Advocate.
For the Non-petitioner:Mr. Prakash Tatia, Advocate.
The court must give the plaintiff an opportunity to implead necessary parties before dismissing the suit on the ground of non-joinder of a party. The provision in the Limitation Act of 1963 enables the court to direct that the suit as regards the newly added party shall be deemed to have been instituted on an earlier date.
Headnote:
Revision - Addition of Party - The court allowed the plaintiff's revision against the trial court's order rejecting the plaintiff's application for addition of a party and consequential amendment in the plaint, emphasizing that the court must give the plaintiff an opportunity to implead necessary parties before dismissing the suit on the ground of non-joinder of a party. The court also highlighted the provision in the Limitation Act of 1963, which enables the court to direct that the suit as regards the newly added party shall be deemed to have been instituted on an earlier date.
Fact of the Case:
Plaintiff filed a revision against the trial court's order rejecting the plaintiff's application for addition of a party and consequential amendment in the plaint.
Finding of the Court:
The court allowed the plaintiff's revision, emphasizing the necessity to give the plaintiff an opportunity to implead necessary parties before dismissing the suit on the ground of non-joinder of a party. The court also highlighted the provision in the Limitation Act of 1963, which enables the court to direct that the suit as regards the newly added party shall be deemed to have been instituted on an earlier date.
Issues: Rejection of plaintiff's application for addition of a party and consequential amendment in the plaint, non-joinder of a party, and the bar of limitation to addition of the party.
Ratio Decidendi: The court must give the plaintiff an opportunity to implead necessary parties before dismissing the suit on the ground of non-joinder of a party. The provision in the Limitation Act of 1963 enables the court to direct that the suit as regards the newly added party shall be deemed to have been instituted on an earlier date.
Final Decision: The revision is allowed, the impugned order of the trial court is set aside, and the plaintiff's application for addition of a party and consequential amendment in the plaint is allowed.
*******
