LexMUNSHI RAM versus NARSI RAM & ANOTHER
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
... 1 233 MUNSHI RAM v. NARSI RAM & ANOTHER 8 January 14J 1983 [P.N. BHAGWATI AND E.S. VENKATARAMIAH, JJ.] Limitation Act, 1963 (Act XXXVI of 1963), Article 97 read with Section 2 (h) read with provi'o to Section 21 (1), scope of-Non-joinder of the defendant C due to bona fide mistake discer1tible from official document but rectified later by means of an application without delay-Plea of Bar of limitalion mu1t fail- Code of Civil Procedure, Order I; Rules 9 & JO-Amendment of pleadings under Order VI, Rule 17 is not necessary . The appellant filed a suit in the court of sub-Judge Kaitbal for possession of a piece of land in exercise of his right of pre-emption against respondents I and 2 alleging that they bad purchased the land from his father, Babu Ram under a registered sale-deed dated May 16, 1977 in total discharge of his right of pre-emption. He stated in the plaint that the cause of action bad arisen on May 16, 1977 and hence the suit filed on January 29, 1977 was in time. The certified copy of the sale deed issued by the Registration Office recited that the land in question had been sold in favour of respondents 1 and 2 only. Respondents 1 and 2 filed their wdtten statement on May 17, 1978and took a plea of non-joinder of all necessary parties without producing the original sale deed with them. After a replication denying the plea of _non-joinder was filed on June 14, 1978 by the ~appellant, the counsel for respondents 1 and 2 read out the original sale deed in which it had been written that one Manni Devi wife of Om Prakash was also a vendee along with respondents J and 2, where upon the appellant moved an application on June IS, 1978, under Order I RulelOread with order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure seeking permission to amend the cause title and the pleadings. On contest, that trial court accepted the objection to the said aPplication and dismissed the application and the suit. The first appeal before the Additional District Judge was dismissed and the second appeal before the Punjab & Haiyana High Court was dismissed at the stage of admission without giving any reasons therefor. Hence the appeal after obtaining special leave of the Court. Allowing the appeal, the Court D E F G HELD : 1:1. A change in section 21 of the Limitation Act, 1963, by inserting a proviso to the effect that where the Court is satisfied that the omission to include a new plantiff or defendant was due to a mistake made in . e good faith it may direct that tho suit as regards him should be demed to have ~ been ins~itut~d on any earlier date, has been made to reduce the severity of ,. .... -- __ ..._.,. - -_ A B c D E F G H 234 SIJPREMn COURT RnPORTS (1983) 2 S,C,K. the previous law and not to deprive a ptantiff of bis rights against that person, if the Court is satisfied of the bonafides of the mistakes •. [238 H, 239 A-BJ 2;1. In the instant case. the oa1ission to implead Munni Devi as a defendai:it was due to- mistake as gleaned from the pleadings. The certified copy of the s·a1e deed in question was obtained from thel office of the sub- Registrar, and in the said copy the name of Munni Devi was not shown as a vendee at an. On the date when the su·it was filed i.e. on 29th January, 1978 or till the counsel read out the original sale deed the appellant did not (know by any otb1~r means that there was SIU' C•ther vendee in addition to respondents 1 and 2. The written statement - was ch,arly drafted not mentioning her name, ·Even the original s,ale deed was not produced with the written statement but the contents were read out on June 14, 1978 after the replication was filed denying the plea of non~oinder of necessary parties. The fact ;that the appellants' father was the vendor docs not lead to the presumption of his knowledge that Manni Devi was one of the vendees. In fact the appellant had nothing to gain by not impleading Munni Devi as a defendant. These circumstances lead to the only conclusion that the app~llant had acted with due care and atten~ion, within the meaning of the term "good faith" in s¢ction 2 (h) 'oftbe Limitations Act, 1963, which the court• below failed to note. (2) The suit against Munni Devi should be deemed to have been filed on the date of the institution of the suit i.e. January 29, 1978 itself, treating that as an 0 earlier date" referred to in the proviso to section 21 (I) of the Act, since there is no dispute that,
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.