Skip to content


Cumar Ganoda Kant Roy Bahadur and Two ors. Vs. Subodini Debi - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtKolkata
Decided On
Judge
Reported in(1887)ILR14Cal400
AppellantCumar Ganoda Kant Roy Bahadur and Two ors.
RespondentSubodini Debi
Excerpt:
parties - civil procedure code, sections 27 and 32--limitation--institution of suits--change of parties. - .....the express provisions of section 27 of the code of civil procedure, under which section, if a suit is brought in the name of the wrong person as plaintiff, the name of the right person may be substituted, provided the conditions of the section are complied with. it is said, however, that that change was made at such a time that, if the suit had been then brought for the first time in the names of the proper persons, it would have been barred by limitation, and the suggestion is that therefore this suit is barred. the answer to that is that this suit is the original suit and was brought in time; tee change of parties as plaintiffs does not affect the question of limitation. there is a difference between substituting a new person as plaintiff under section 27 and the addition of anew.....
Judgment:

1. It appears that this suit which was one for rent was originally brought in the name of Mr. Stevens as the authorized manager of Bajah Ganoda Kant Boy Bahadur and others. At a later stage in the suit an amendment was made by striking out Mr. Stevens and substituting his employers as plaintiffs in the case. We must presume that to have been done on sufficient materials under the express provisions of Section 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure, under which section, if a suit is brought in the name of the wrong person as plaintiff, the name of the right person may be substituted, provided the conditions of the section are complied with. It is said, however, that that change was made at such a time that, if the suit had been then brought for the first time in the names of the proper persons, it would have been barred by limitation, and the suggestion is that therefore this suit is barred. The answer to that is that this suit is the original suit and was brought in time; tee change of parties as plaintiffs does not affect the question of limitation. There is a difference between substituting a new person as plaintiff under Section 27 and the addition of anew person as a defendant to a suit. Section 32 expressly says, speaking of defendants, that the proceedings as against them shall, for the purposes of the Limitation Act, be deemed to have begun only on the service of summons, that is the summons servable on the added defendants. There is no such provision as regards persons who are made plaintiffs under Section 27. This point therefore fails.

2. We dismiss this appeal with costs.


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