Skip to content


M.A. Rajam Aiyangar and ors. Vs. Muthukrishna Pillai and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
CourtChennai
Decided On
Judge
Reported inAIR1915Mad424; 25Ind.Cas.945
AppellantM.A. Rajam Aiyangar and ors.
RespondentMuthukrishna Pillai and ors.
Cases Referred and Subramania Aiyar v. Subbu Naidu
Excerpt:
limitation act (ix of 1908,), section 22 - adding new party--suit by managing director of company in private capacity--application for amendment of suit as managing director--amendment, effect of--new plaintiff, addition of. - .....cas. 421 : 25 m.l.j. 452 : 14 m.l.t. 437 appears to support the view i take. the alteration, if allowed, merely had the effect of altering the ground on which the plaintiff already on record could recover the suit amount.2. i, therefore, set aside the decree of the lower court, direct the amendment prayed to be made and order that the suit be disposed- of anew after hearing such evidence as may be adduced on both sides. the respondent will pay the petitioners' costs of this petition.in civil revisions petitions nos. 485 and 486 of 1913.3. following the decision in civil revision petition no. 484 of 1913 and for the like reasons recorded in the judgment therein, i set aside the decrees and direct the amendment prayed to be made and order that the suits be disposed of anew after hearing.....
Judgment:

Hannay, J.

In Civil Revision Petition No. 484 of 1913.

1. The question is whether the lower Court is right in holding that the effect of the application by the plaintiff, dated 28th March 1913, asking that a decree in the alternative may be passed in his favour as Managing Director of the Reliance Company, Limited, (he having sued in his private capacity in the first instance) was to add a new plaintiff after the right to sue had become barred by limitation. I do not think that that view can be supported. The Company was not in fact added as a party, but thereby the capacity in which the plaintiff sued was sought to be altered. This would not, in my opinion, be equivalent to adding a new plaintiff so as to admit of the terms of Article 22 of the Limitation Act being applied to the case. The principle of the cases cited by the petitioner Saminatha v. Muihayya 15 M. 417 : 2 M.L.J. 119, Peary Mohan Mukerjee v. Narendra Nath Mukerjee 32 C. 582 : 9 C.W.N. 421 and Subramania Aiyar v. Subbu Naidu 21 Ind. Cas. 421 : 25 M.L.J. 452 : 14 M.L.T. 437 appears to support the view I take. The alteration, if allowed, merely had the effect of altering the ground on which the plaintiff already on record could recover the suit amount.

2. I, therefore, set aside the decree of the lower Court, direct the amendment prayed to be made and order that the suit be disposed- of anew after hearing such evidence as may be adduced on both sides. The respondent will pay the petitioners' costs of this petition.

In Civil Revisions Petitions Nos. 485 and 486 of 1913.

3. Following the decision in Civil Revision Petition No. 484 of 1913 and for the like reasons recorded in the judgment therein, I set aside the decrees and direct the amendment prayed to be made and order that the suits be disposed of anew after hearing such evidence as may be adduced on both sides. The respondents will pay the petitioners' costs of these petitions.


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