9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Revision petition against the order of addition of plaintiffs in a representative suit. 2. Dismissal of suit due to death of original plaintiff and subsequent applications for addition of plaintiffs. 3. Application under Order 1, Rules 8 and 10 and Section 151 of the Code for addition of plaintiffs. 4. Jurisdiction of the Court to dismiss the suit for default in a representative suit. 5. Interpretation of Limitation Act regarding the period for adding a plaintiff in a representative suit. 6. Validity of the order of dismissal for default and the subsequent application for addition of plaintiffs. Analysis: 1. The revision petition was filed against the order of the District Munsif of Madura Town, directing the addition of respondents as plaintiffs in a representative suit. The suit was initially filed by a deceased individual on behalf of a community, and after his death, applications were made by his son to be added as a plaintiff, which were dismissed. The present application for addition of plaintiffs was filed within three years of the original plaintiff's death under Order 1, Rules 8 and 10 and Section 151 of the Code. 2. The Court rightly acknowledged that in a representative suit, there is no abatement by reason of the death of the original plaintiff. Any person on whose behalf the suit was filed can apply to be added as a plaintiff for continuing the suit. The opinion on the period for such an application varied, with one view suggesting no time limit and another suggesting a three-year period under the Limitation Act. The Court preferred the latter view, emphasizing that a suit should not be dismissed on the death of a sole plaintiff until the expiration of the period for his legal representative to come in. 3. The Court highlighted that in a representative suit, the other members of the community were not co nomine plaintiffs on record, so the suit could not be dismissed for default due to their non-appearance. The dismissal of the suit for default was deemed to be without jurisdiction, and the subsequent application for addition of plaintiffs was filed within the permissible time frame, making it valid. 4. The order of dismissal for default, if not set aside within 30 days, was considered not a bar to the present application for addition of plaintiffs. The Court concluded that the order in question, allowing the addition of plaintiffs, was correct, and thus dismissed the Civil Revision Petition with costs. This judgment clarifies the procedures and timelines for adding plaintiffs in a representative suit after the death of the original plaintiff, emphasizing the importance of ensuring continuity in such suits and preventing unjust dismissals for default.
|
