Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 16 (0.50 seconds)Section 21 in The Limitation Act, 1963 [Entire Act]
Section 3 in The Limitation Act, 1963 [Entire Act]
Section 10 in The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [Entire Act]
Section 151 in The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [Entire Act]
Section 4 in The Limitation Act, 1963 [Entire Act]
Section 24 in The Limitation Act, 1963 [Entire Act]
Mukesh Kumar And Ors vs Col. Harbans Waraich And Ors on 27 October, 1999
27. This Court finds it necessary to take note of judgment
passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Mukesh Kumar and Others Vs.
Col. Harbans Waraich, 1999 (9) SCC 380, wherein it was observed that
as per Section 21 when a new plaintiff or defendant is substituted or
added, the suit shall be deemed to have been instituted at the time
he/she was made party to the suit, however Section 21(2) of the Act
states that afore provision would not apply in case where
plaintiff/defendant is added or substituted owing to assignment or
devaluation of any interest during the pendency of suit or where plaintiff
is made a defendant or vice versa, in such situations plaintiff/defendant
shall be deemed to have instituted the suit on an earlier date and as
such after transposition of party, there should be no addition to the
::: Downloaded on - 26/09/2025 21:46:10 :::CIS
2025:HHC:33715
-24-
subject matter of the suit. Relevant Para of afore judgment reads as
under:
Section 9A in The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [Entire Act]
Nusli Neville Wadia vs Ivory Properties on 4 October, 2019
Otherwise also, by now it is well-settled that if there is even a possibility
that the issue of limitation requires evidence or factual determination, the
plaint should not be rejected summarily. Reliance in this regard is placed
upon judgment passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Nusli Neville
Wadia Vs. Ivory Properties and Others, (2020) 6 SCC 557, relevant
paras of which read as under: