KARUPPASWAMY AND OTHERS versus C. RAMAMURTHY

Citation: [1993] SUPP. 1 S.C.R. 121 · Decided: 14-07-1993 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M.M. PUNCHHI · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

KARUPPASWAMY AND OTHERS 
A 
v. 
C. RAMAMURTHY 
JULY 14, 1993 
[MADAN MOHAN PUNCHHI AND K. RAMASWAMY, JJ.] 
B 
Limitation Act, 1908: Section 22. 
Limitation Act, 1963 : Section 21-Proviso. 
Mistake of plaintiff found to be made in good faith-Satisfaction of 
Court necessity for. 
Suit filed against dead persor>-Court satisfied that mistake was made 
in good fait~ourt comet in concluding that legal representatives of dead 
defendent be substituted. 
c' 
D 
The respondent in the appeal was the plaintiff in the trial Cnurt. He 
filed a suit against one Mariappa Gounder for money due on a premissory 
note executed on 14.11.1971. The said suit was filed on the last day of 
limitation. Mariappa Gounder was shown as the sole defendant but he had 
died about six weeks earlier on 5.10.1974. The summons in the suit which E 
was issued was thus returned on the first hearing on 9.1.75 with the 
remarks that the defendant was dead, but the date of h:s death was not 
disclosed in the remarks. 
The plaintiff took time from the Court to take necessary steps to 
further prosecute the suit. On 7.2.1975 an interlocutory application was 
F 
moved by him under Order 22 Rule 4 C.P.C. impleading the son, daughter 
and widow of the deceased defendant as his heirs and legal representatives 
as defendant nos. 2 to 4 and they are the appellants in the present appeal. 
A counter statement was filed by them to the interlocutory application in 
which it was pleaded that the suit was non est on account of the death of G 
the sole defendant having taken place on 5.9.74. The respondent thereupon 
moved another interlocutory application for change of the provision under 
which the earlier interlocutory application made from one Order 22 Rule 
4 to one under Sections 151 and 153 of the Code of the Civil Procedure. 
The Trial Court dismissed both the interlocutory applications on H 
121 
122 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1993) SUPP. 1 S.C.R. 
A October 23, 1975 taking the view that since the second interlocutory 
application was filed for substitution of defendants 2 to 4 as defendants, . 
the suit on the basis of the pronote had become barred by tiuie against 
them and that there was no ground to invoke inherent power under Section 
151 C.P.C. 
B 
The aforesaid orders were challenged before the High Court by the 
respondent and he emerged successful. It was held by the High Court that 
the respondent in the facts and circumstances, had acted in good faith and 
that in view of the proviso to Section 21(1) of the Limitation Act, 1963, it 
was jnst to direct that the date of the filing of the suit against the heirs 
C and legal representatives of the deceased defendant shall date back to the 
original presentation of the plaint that is on 4.11.74. The High Court relied 
on the decision on this Court in Ram Prasad Dagduram v. Vijay Kumar 
Motila/ & 01»., [l966] SCR (Suppl.) 188=AIR (1967) SC 278. The appel-
lants legal representatives challenged the decision of the High Court in 
their appeal to this Court. 
D 
Dismissing the appeal, this Court 
HELD : 1. A comparative reading of the proviso to suh- section (1) 
to Section 21 of the Limitation Act, 1963 and Section 22 of the Limitation 
E Act, 1908 shows that the addition of the proviso has made all the dif-
ference. It is also clear that the proviso has appeared to permit correction 
of errors which have been committed due to a mistake made in good faith 
but only when the court permits correction of such mistake. In that event 
its effect is not to begin from the date on which the application for the 
purpose was made, or from the date of permission but from the date of 
F the suit, deeming it to have been correctly instituted on an earlier date 
than the date of making the application. [126-F-G] 
2. The proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 21 of the Act is obviously 
in line with the spirit and thought of some other provisions in part Ill of 
G the Limitation Act such as Section 14 providing .exclusion of time of 
proceeding bona fide in court without jurisdiction when computing the 
period of limitation for any suit, and Section 17(1) providing a different 
period of limitation starting when discovering a fraud or mistake instead 
of the commission of fraud or mistake. [126-H; 127-A] 
H 
3. While invoking the beneficient 11roviso to sub-section (l) of Section 
KARUP-PASWAMY v, RAMAMURIBY 
123 
21 of the Act an averment that a mistake was made in good faith by A 
impleading a dead defendant in the suit shoul

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.