Representative suit substitution follows residuary limitation, and dismissal for default is barred before the limitation period expires.

In a representative suit under Order 1 Rule 8 CPC, the death of the original plaintiff did not cause abatement, and a member of the represented body could be brought on record to continue the action. Because no specific limitation period applied, the residuary Article 181 of the Limitation Act, 1908 governed the substitution application, allowing three years from the plaintiff's death. The court could not dismiss the suit for default before that period expired, since dismissal at that stage was without jurisdiction. The later application for substitution was therefore valid and the representative suit could proceed.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether, in a representative suit under Order 1 Rule 8 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, an application to bring on record another member of the represented body as plaintiff after the death of the original plaintiff is governed by Article 181 of the Limitation Act, 1908. (ii) Whether the suit could be dismissed for default before expiry of the period within which such an application could be made.

Issue (i): Whether, in a representative suit under Order 1 Rule 8 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, an application to bring on record another member of the represented body as plaintiff after the death of the original plaintiff is governed by Article 181 of the Limitation Act, 1908.

Analysis: In a representative suit, the death of the person who instituted the suit does not cause abatement under Order 22 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. A person for whose benefit the suit was filed may seek to be added as plaintiff to continue the action. As no special limitation period was provided for such an application, the residuary Article 181 was held applicable, giving a period of three years from the death of the original plaintiff.

Conclusion: The application to be added as plaintiff was governed by Article 181 of the Limitation Act, 1908 and was within time if filed within three years.

Issue (ii): Whether the suit could be dismissed for default before expiry of the period within which such an application could be made.

Analysis: Until the expiry of the limitation period for bringing in another plaintiff, the court had no jurisdiction to dismiss the suit for default merely because the original plaintiff had died. The other members of the represented community were not co-nominee plaintiffs on record, and the earlier dismissal of the suit before the expiry of three years was therefore treated as without jurisdiction.

Conclusion: The dismissal of the suit for default before expiry of the three-year period was invalid and did not bar the later application.

Final Conclusion: The revision failed, and the order allowing substitution and continuation of the representative suit was upheld.

Ratio Decidendi: In a representative suit, where no specific limitation period is provided for adding another eligible plaintiff after the death of the original plaintiff, the residuary limitation article applies, and the suit cannot be dismissed for default before that period expires.

---