C.R.P.No.157/2014 page 1 of 4

*

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+ C.R.P.157/2014 & C.M.No.18169/2014 (Exemption)

%

07^th November, 2014

M/S TEXMACO LTD.

..... Petitioner

Through

Mr.Dayanand Krishnan, Sr.Advocate

with Mr.Sachin Datta, Advocate.

versus

CH.RAMSWAROOP WRESTLING CLUB & ORS. ..... Respondents

Through

CORAM:

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA

To be referred to the Reporter or not?

VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J (ORAL)

1. The present petition under Section 115 of Code of Civil Procedure

Act, 1908 (CPC) impugns the order of the trial court dated 25.9.2014 by

which the trial court has rejected an application filed by the

petitioner/defendant no.2 under Order VII Rule 11 CPC.

2. The limited issue which was required to be addressed for disposal of

the said application was that the petitioner/defendant no.2 claimed that since

the respondent no.1/plaintiff was an unregistered association on the date of

filing of the suit, subsequent registration of the respondent no.1/ plaintiff as

2014:DHC:5775

C.R.P.No.157/2014 page 2 of 4

a society under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 during the pendency of

the suit will not make a difference to the invalidity in the filing of the suit.

Reliance is placed upon the judgments of the Supreme Court which however

pertain to Section 69 of the Partnership Act, 1932 that subsequent

registration of a partnership firm which is a plaintiff during the pendency of

the suit will not cure the original defect of filing of a suit by an unregistered

partnership firm.

3. I cannot agree with the arguments urged on behalf of the

petitioner/defendant no.2 because the argument ignores the provision of

Section 21 of the Limitation Act, 1963 and the judgment of the Supreme

Court in the case of Karuppaswamy & Ors. Vs. C.Ramamurthy, (1993) 4

SCC 41. The provision of Section 21 of the Limitation Act says that when a

person is newly added as a party to the suit, the suit as against that person

will be taken to be filed as on the date of filing of the application by which

such a person has sought to be added as a party. In the present case, the

plaintiff originally being an unregistered society, pendent lite it was

registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860, and therefore on the

application being filed when the aspect of registration was brought on record

in the suit, therefrom the suit by the society will be taken to have been filed

2014:DHC:5775

C.R.P.No.157/2014 page 3 of 4

on the date on which the aspect was brought on record that the unregistered

association of the plaintiff has become a society registered under the

Societies Registration Act, 1860.

4. The Supreme Court in the case of Karuppaswamy (supra) holds that

when a suit is filed against a dead person, the suit will not be nullity and

when taken with Section 21 of the Limitation Act, the suit will be instituted

as against the legal heirs of the deceased defendant when the legal heirs of

the defendant are brought on record. Therefore, applying the spirit of the

provision of Section 21 of the Limitation Act and the ratio of judgment of

the Supreme Court in the case of Karuppaswamy(supra), though the suit as

originally filed being by an unregistered association was not maintainable,

subsequent registration under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 cures the

defect.

5. The petitioner/defendant no.2 can always now seek amendment of the

written statement to raise all legal objections including of any aspect of the

Limitation Act which the petitioner/defendant no.2 may choose to raise, and

if an application for amendment of