Skip to content


Nandiglri Venkata Narasimharao and anr. Vs. Nandagiri Krishnabayamma and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
CourtChennai
Decided On
Judge
Reported in120Ind.Cas.369
AppellantNandiglri Venkata Narasimharao and anr.
RespondentNandagiri Krishnabayamma and ors.
Cases ReferredV.P.R.V. Chokalingam Chetty v. Seethai Ache
Excerpt:
civil procedure code (act v of 1908), order xli, rule 20 - person not added as party respondent--addition as party for filing memorandum of objections, legality of. - .....56 ind. cas. 612 : 11 l.w. 602 : 27 m.l.t. 266 that under order xli, rule 20 of the code of civil procedure, 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 ache 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 xli, rule 20 of the code of civil procedure 'interested in the result of the appeal.' reading the two cases.....
Judgment:
ORDER

Curgenven, J.

1. It has been held in Ponnu-swami Asari v. Palaniandi Mudaliar 56 Ind. Cas. 612 : 11 L.W. 602 : 27 M.L.T. 266 that under Order XLI, Rule 20 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 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 Ache 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 XLI, Rule 20 of the Code of Civil Procedure 'interested in the result of the appeal.' Reading 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 XLI, Rule 20 of the Code of Civil Procedure 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. The 4th defendant 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 //