Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

"Since the name in which the action was instituted w as merely a misdescription of the original plaintiff, no question of limitation arises; the plaint must be deemed on amendment to have been instituted in the name of the real plaintiff, on the date on which it was originally instituted."

The present one being clearly a case of correction of misdescription, the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ramalingam's case (supra) has no application. In Ramalingam, the State of Tamil Nadu, a necessary party in the suit for cancellation of auction sale was not joined at all; and application was later on moved by the plaintiff to join the said necessary party. The Hon'ble Supreme Court found that in view of Section 21 of the Limitation Act, so far the State of Tamil Nadu was concerned, the suit had to be treated as instituted when the application for its impleadment was allowed and by that time the suit had gone beyond limitation. In such a scenario, the Hon'ble Supreme Court pointed out that after substituting or adding a party in the suit, a separate/further order is required that the suit as regards the newly added defendant or plaintiff would be deemed to have been instituted with effect from the date the suit was laid; and merely adding or substituting a plaintiff or defendant is not enough; and in the absence of any order that impleadment shall take effect from the date of institution, the period of limitation in relation to the newly added or substituted parties would run from the date of their impleadment. The matter was being considered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court after the suit was dismissed by the Trial Court but was decreed by the First Appellate Court and such a decree was maintained by the High Court; and the Hon'ble Supreme Court pointed out from the records that no order was found having been passed by the Trial Court and thus, in the absence of such an order, the suit filed by the respondent was held barred by limitation with reference to the provisions of Section 59 of Tamil Nadu Revenue Recovery Act. In the present case, as noticed, the provisions of Section 21 (1) do not apply for it being not a case of addition or substitution of a party but only of correction of the description of the defendant No.1 firm.