Skip to content


(Nandigiri) Venkata Narasimharao and anr. Vs. (Nandigiri) Krishnabayamma and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtChennai
Decided On
Reported inAIR1929Mad479
Appellant(Nandigiri) Venkata Narasimharao and anr.
Respondent(Nandigiri) Krishnabayamma and ors.
Cases ReferredV.P.R.V. Chokalingam Chetty v. Seethai Achi
Excerpt:
- .....has been held in ponnuswami asari v. palaniandi mudali [1920] 11 m.l.w. 602 that under order 41, rule 20, civil p.c., a party to the suit may be added to the appeal, as respondent in order that a memorandum of objections may be filed against him. the question of the effect of limitation does not seem to have been raised and considered in that case, but a recent privy council decision in v.p.r.v. chokalingam chetty v. seethai achi has been brought to my notice in which it has been held that a defendant in respect of whom the plaintiff has allowed the dismissal of his suit to become time barred without making him a party to the appeal is no longer a person in the words of order 41, rule 20, civil p.c. ' interested in the result of the appeal.' beading the two cases together, i am.....
Judgment:
ORDER

Curgenven, J.

1. It has been held in Ponnuswami Asari v. Palaniandi Mudali [1920] 11 M.L.W. 602 that under Order 41, Rule 20, Civil P.C., a party to the suit may be added to the appeal, as respondent in order that a memorandum of objections may be filed against him. The question of the effect of limitation does not seem to have been raised and considered in that case, but a recent Privy Council decision in V.P.R.V. Chokalingam Chetty v. Seethai Achi has been brought to my notice in which it has been held that a defendant in respect of whom the plaintiff has allowed the dismissal of his suit to become time barred without making him a party to the appeal is no longer a person in the words of Order 41, Rule 20, Civil P.C. ' interested in the result of the appeal.' Beading the two cases together, I am inclined to the view that where, as here, a party has not filed an appeal against another party not himself an appellant, and the time for so doing has expired he cannot, under Order 41, Rule 20, Civil P.C. have him added for the purpose of filing a memorandum of objections. Even if there is actually jurisdiction so to do, I would not pass such an order unless very unusual grounds were shown, which I do not find here. Defendant 4 has obtained a decree for maintenance and the plaintiffs have not chosen to appeal against it and the time for doing so is now expired. I do not think that they should be permitted to avail themselves of this alternative procedure in order now to attack it. I therefore dismiss this application with costs.


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