Skip to content


Buddree Doss and anr. Vs. Hoare, Miller and Co. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtKolkata
Decided On
Judge
Reported in(1882)ILR8Cal170
AppellantBuddree Doss and anr.
RespondentHoare, Miller and Co.
Cases ReferredChild v. Stenning L.R.
Excerpt:
application to add a defendant - civil procedure code (act x of 1887), sections 28 and 32--judicature act, order xvi, rules 3 and 6. - .....plaintiff applies in proper time, he is entitled to have a person added as a defendant, if he had been entitled to join him originally. but, under section 28, 'all persons may be joined as defendants against whom the light to any relief is alleged to exist, whether jointly, severally, or in the alternative, in respect of the same matter.' here the claim is against hoare, miller, & co. if the facts turn out that hoare, miller, & co. were the principals for whom aushotosh dutt, whom it is sought to add, was acting, they can claim to have their remedy in the alternative.3. i should have said so without authority, but there is express authority in the case of child v. stenning l.r. 5 ch. d. 695.4. i think, therefore, that the order should be made as asked for. costs should be costs in the.....
Judgment:

Wilson, J.

1. I think there is no doubt whatever that the order ought to be made. The application is made under Sections 28 and 32 of Act X of 1877.

2. As a general rule, if the plaintiff applies in proper time, he is entitled to have a person added as a defendant, if he had been entitled to join him originally. But, under Section 28, 'all persons may be joined as defendants against whom the light to any relief is alleged to exist, whether jointly, severally, or in the alternative, in respect of the same matter.' Here the claim is against Hoare, Miller, & Co. If the facts turn out that Hoare, Miller, & Co. were the principals for whom Aushotosh Dutt, whom it is sought to add, was acting, they can claim to have their remedy in the alternative.

3. I should have said so without authority, but there is express authority in the case of Child v. Stenning L.R. 5 Ch. D. 695.

4. I think, therefore, that the order should be made as asked for. Costs should be costs in the cause.


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