PONNAMMA et al. v. KASIPATHI PULLE et al.

PONNAMMA et al. v. KASIPATHI PULLE et al.

D. C, Batticaloa, 1,993.

Civil Procedure Code, s. 17-Non-joinder of defendants-Necessity of naming the parties to be joined.

It is the duty of a defendant pleading non-joinder to state the name of the party to be joined, so that the plaintiff may have on opportunity of amending his plaint.

THIS was an action by plaintiffs, husband and wife, to recover Rs. 750 from the defendants on the footing of an agreement whereby the defendants and one Muttupillai, since dead, bound themselves, in consideration of the plaintiffs marrying each other, to erect a house for them of the value of Rs. 750 within one year of their marriage.

One of the issues framed in the Court below was, whether the action was bad for non-joinder of the legal representatives of the deceased Muttupillai.

The District Judge upheld this objection in these terms: -

" I think this is a fatal objection. All the parties to the joint obligation should have been sued at the same time, though they may not be liable in proportionate shares."

" Plaintiffs had an opportunity after answer was filed to remedy this defect, but they

Click Here to Read the rest of this document