Named co-plaintiff status starts with the plaint itself, preventing limitation from being triggered by later procedural correction.

A person expressly named as a co-plaintiff in the plaint is treated as a party to the suit from its institution, even if he did not sign or verify the pleading. Section 30 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1882 applies only where a suit is brought by one person on behalf of others with joint interests who are not named as co-plaintiffs. On that construction, later procedural applications or corrections did not change the original party status, so the supposed defect did not defer commencement of the suits for limitation purposes. The suits were therefore not barred by limitation, and the decrees were set aside with the matters remitted for trial on the merits.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether a person named as a co-plaintiff, though not signing or verifying the plaint and later the subject of procedural applications, was a party to the suit from its institution; (ii) whether the suits were barred by limitation because the alleged defect of parties was cured only later.

Issue (i): whether a person named as a co-plaintiff, though not signing or verifying the plaint and later the subject of procedural applications, was a party to the suit from its institution.

Analysis: The plaints themselves named the three joint-creditors as co-plaintiffs. The absence of signatures or verification by one co-plaintiff did not negate his status as a plaintiff. Section 30 of the Civil Procedure Code of 1882, relied upon in the pleadings, applied only where a suit was brought by one person on behalf of others having joint interests but not named as co-plaintiffs. Since the record already showed the person concerned as a co-plaintiff, the later applications and orders could not alter the real position.

Conclusion: He was a plaintiff from the date of institution of the suit.

Issue (ii): whether the suits were barred by limitation because the alleged defect of parties was cured only later.

Analysis: If the co-plaintiff became a party only on the later date of correction, the suits would have been out of time; if he was already a party when the suits were filed, they would be within time. On the proper construction of the plaints and the record, all joint-creditors were plaintiffs from the commencement, so the supposed defect did not postpone the institution of the suits for limitation purposes.

Conclusion: The suits were not barred by limitation.

Final Conclusion: The decrees below were set aside, the appeals succeeded, and the suits were remitted for trial on the merits.

Ratio Decidendi: A person expressly named as a co-plaintiff is a party to the suit from its institution, and later procedural mistakes or applications cannot defer that status so as to attract the law of limitation.

---