Skip to content


Dwarka Nath Dinda and ors. Vs. Grish Chunder Sasmal - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtKolkata
Decided On
Judge
Reported in(1897)ILR24Cal640
AppellantDwarka Nath Dinda and ors.
RespondentGrish Chunder Sasmal
Cases ReferredOriental Bank Corporation v. Charriol I.L.R.
Excerpt:
parties - adding parties to suit--civil procedure code (act xiv of 1882), section 32--court adding a defendant--limitation. - .....was not originally on the record, but was, in the course of the suit, added by the first court under section 32 of the code.2. it has been held in the case of oriental bank corporation v. charriol i.l.r. 12 cal. 642 that where a court, acting on information brought to its notice, adds a party who, it thinks, is necessary for the disposal of the suit, no question of limitation arises.3. the defendant no. 7 in this case was, under the transfer of property act, a party necessary for the final disposal of the suit. we, therefore, think that no question of limitation arises; and the mortgage in suit must be enforced against the defendant no. 7, as well as the other defendants, except the defendant no. 6.4. the appeal is, therefore, dismissed with costs.
Judgment:

O'Kinealy and Hill, JJ.

1. This is a suit for money due on a simple mortgage bond dated the 12th Jaista 1288; and the only point in the appeal is in regard to the defendant No. 7, who became the mortgagee of the equity of redemption after the plaintiffs' mortgage. This defendant was not originally on the record, but was, in the course of the suit, added by the first Court under Section 32 of the Code.

2. It has been held in the case of Oriental Bank Corporation v. Charriol I.L.R. 12 Cal. 642 that where a Court, acting on information brought to its notice, adds a party who, it thinks, is necessary for the disposal of the suit, no question of limitation arises.

3. The defendant No. 7 in this case was, under the Transfer of Property Act, a party necessary for the final disposal of the suit. We, therefore, think that no question of limitation arises; and the mortgage in suit must be enforced against the defendant No. 7, as well as the other defendants, except the defendant No. 6.

4. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed with costs.


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