Skip to content


Saminatha Pillay Vs. Rajagopal Mudaliar - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectLimitation
CourtChennai
Decided On
Reported inAIR1921Mad124; (1921)40MLJ208
AppellantSaminatha Pillay
RespondentRajagopal Mudaliar
Excerpt:
- .....him from the list of defendants to the position of a plaintiff. order 22, rule 3 does not in terms apply, but there can be no question here that the right to sue was jointly in the plaintiff and the petitioner in the lower court. on the death of the plaintiff that right vested in the petitioner in the lower court, and he is entitled to conduct the suit.2. as rule 3 of order 22 does not apply, it cannot be said to have abated within the meaning of that rule. article 176 of the limitation act would not apply but the article that would be applicable is article 181. the contigency such as happened in this suit is not expressly and specifically dealt with by the code of civil procedure. there can be no doubt that the court has the power of transposing the defendant as the plaintiff.....
Judgment:

1. This suit was brought by the plaintiff who alleged that he and Rajagopal Mudali were trustees of the property in dispute. The plaintiff died, and the question before us is whether Rajagopal Mudali was rightly allowed by the District Munsiff to conduct the suit as plaintiff, by transferring him from the list of defendants to the position of a plaintiff. Order 22, Rule 3 does not in terms apply, but there can be no question here that the right to sue was jointly in the plaintiff and the petitioner in the lower Court. On the death of the plaintiff that right vested in the petitioner in the lower Court, and he is entitled to conduct the suit.

2. As Rule 3 of Order 22 does not apply, it cannot be said to have abated within the meaning of that rule. Article 176 of the Limitation Act would not apply but the article that would be applicable is Article 181. The contigency such as happened in this suit is not expressly and specifically dealt with by the Code of Civil Procedure. There can be no doubt that the Court has the power of transposing the defendant as the plaintiff in the circumstances disclosed in this case.Order I, Rule II gives general power to the Court to give the conduct of the suit to such persons as it deems proper, and the present would be eminently a fit case for the exercise of the power.

3. We therefore dismiss both the Revision Petitions with costs.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //