Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 10 (0.20 seconds)
Seth Nandaramdas Atmaram By Agent ... vs Zulika Bibi And Ors. on 23 February, 1943 cites

Patayath Parumpayil Sankara Menon vs Karumathil Puthumanae Sanku'S Son ... on 21 March, 1939

12. An amendment which does not seek to bring in a new party but only varies the ground on which the relief was originally sought or asks for a different or additietoal relief without changing she cause of action; does not bring the case within Section 22 of the Limitation Act. It is equally clear that where a party is already on the record either as a plaintiff or as a defendant, an amendment which merely,. alters the capacity in which. he has been impleaded to one of a different character does not involve an addition of parties so as to attract the provisions of Section 22. Some of the cases which bear on this aspect of the question have been referred to in the judgment of Wadsworth, J. in Shankma Menon v. Kuttani (1940) 1 M.L.J. 872 : I.L.R. (1940) Mad. But this line of cases does not, in our opinion, directly bear on the question which we have to decide in the present case and we do not therefore consider it necessary to examine them in detail. A better guidance is afforded by two principles recognised by the Court in working Order 1, Rule 8.
Madras High Court Cites 6 - Cited by 2 - Full Document

Raja Peary Mohan Mukerji vs Narendra Nath Mukerji on 16 December, 1909

15. The result of the foregoing discussion is that the amendment of the plaint by which the suit was converted into a representative action under Order I, Rule 8, does not involve the addition of fresh parties. It is true that the capacity of the plaintiff changed, for after the amendment he became a representative of a body of persons consisting of himself and the other creditors; but it is impossible to maintain, in the face of the decision of the Privy Council in Peary Mohan Mookerjee v. Narendra Math Mookerjee (1930) I.L.R. 13 Lah. 92 not to mention other cases, that the amendment introduced fresh parties and having been made after the period of limitation, the suit is barred.
Bombay High Court Cites 0 - Cited by 20 - Full Document

Madina Bibi Sahiba vs The Ismail Durga Association Through ... on 29 February, 1940

5. We now pass on to the question of limitation which arises in this way The suit as originally framed was merely one to,set aside the summary order made under Order 21, Rule 63, Civil Procedure Code and prayed for that order being set aside and the suit properties declared liable to be attached and sold in execution of the decree in O.S. No. 98 of 1938. The material allegation in the plaint was that the alleged gift (Ex. II) was made at a time when Babu Sahib and his sons were heavily indebted, with the sole object of cheating the appellant and other creditors and placing the properties beyond their reach. Thus the suit was in substance a suit under Section 53 of the Transfer of Property Act and should have been instituted on behalf of or for the benefit of all the creditors and not merely on behalf of the plaintiff alone. The provisions of Order 1, Rule 8, Civil Procedure Code, were not invoked. The permission of the Court to sue on, behalf of or for the benefit of all the creditors was not asked. The suit was thus wrongly framed. In these circumstances there was no alternative for the plaintiff but to proceed under Order 1, Rule 8. Otherwise the suit was liable to be summarily dismissed (vide Madina Bibi v. Ismail Durga Association (1940) 1 M.L.J. 872 : I.L.R. (1940) Mad). When objection to the frame of the suit was taken in the written statement, the appellant applied to the Court for an amendment of the plaint so as to bring it in conformity with law and the amendment was ordered and carried out on 22nd August, 1940. If this date is taken to be the crucial date the suit would be barred by limitation.
Madras High Court Cites 8 - Cited by 16 - Full Document
1