1931 (2) TMI 8

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ddition of the respondents 1 and 2 as plaintiffs, and permitting them to continue the suit. ( 2. ) The suit was instituted by one Musafar Rowther, oh behalf of himself and other members of the community of Melagar Uraimwraigars of Ghoripalayam, and the necessary permission of the Court under Order 1, Rule 8, Civil Procedure Code, was also obtained. The suit is therefore a representative suit. T....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....y some other person, and that there was no plaintiff on record. This dismissal was on 20 November, 1928. The present application was filed by the respondents on 3 January, 1929, under Order 1, Rules 8 and 10 and Section 151 of the Code. This was granted by the Lower Court, and the propriety of that order is now questioned in this revision petition. ( 4. ) it is rightly conceded, that in view of....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....of time for an application under Order 1, Rule 8, Civil Procedure Code, to be made a party to the suit. But in the decision of a Division Bench reported in Krishnaswami Aiyar V/s. Seethalahshwi Ammal (1918) 9 L.W. 166 Sadasiva Aiyar, J., is of opinion that the residuary Art. 181 of the Limitation Act fixing a period of 3 years would apply to such an application. It is clear that even in a represen....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....(1926) I.L.R. 53 C. 844 for the application of this principle in a case where the plaintiff was adjudged an insolvent). In the present case, after the death of Musafar Rowther, any other member of the community could apply to be added as plaintiff within three years under Art. 181. ( 5. ) Before the expiration of that period, it seems to me, the Court had no jurisdiction to dismiss the suit for....