NALLA GOUNDER Vs. ILLANAGAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present Civil Revision Petition is filed by the plaintiff as well as third parties to the suit, challenging the order dated 2.8.2014 in I.A.No. 631 of 2014 in O.S.No. 106 of 2008 on the file of the Additional District Munsif Court, Tiruchengode, in dismissing their application filed under Order 1 Rule 10(2) CPC for impleading the petitioners 2 to 4 herein as party-plaintiffs 2 to 4 in the said suit.

(2.) The respondent herein is the defendant in the said suit. Originally, the said suit was filed by the first petitioner herein for permanent injunction, and thereafter, by way of amendment of the plaint, the relief of declaration was added in the plaint prayer. The said amendment had taken place by order dated 4.7.2012 passed in I.A.No. 784 of 2011. Thereafter, the present application under Order 1 Rule 10(2) CPC in I.A.No. 631 of 2014 was filed by the plaintiff along with the proposed parties, for impleading the petitioners 2 to 4 herein as plaintiffs 2 to 4, by contending that by reason of the amended Hindu Succession Act, 2005, the suit would fail, if the proposed parties are not added as co-plaintiffs, as they are coparceners entitled to share in the suit property. In the said application, it is also specifically stated by the plaintiff that he is not proposing to examine the witnesses on his side, if the proposed parties are impleaded as co-plaintiffs 2 to 4. The said application was resisted by the defendant. The trial Court dismissed the said application by holding that by virtue of Section 21 of the Limitation Act, the impleadment of the proposed parties as co-plaintiffs is barred by limitation, considering the nature of the relief sought for in the suit. The trial Court has also observed that even though the amendment of the plaint was made in the year 2012 and even before that, the amendment of the Hindu Succession Act came into force in the year 2005, the plaintiff has not taken steps to implead all the sharers as co-plaintiffs.

(3.) Mr.N.Manokaran, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the trial Court is not correct in holding that the relief sought for in the suit would be barred by limitation insofar as the proposed parties are concerned, by virtue of Section 21 of the Limitation Act, since the proviso to the said Section 21 takes care of the issue with regard to the limitation, if the Court comes to the conclusion that the substitution of the party at a later stage is with bona-fide. In support of his submissions, the learned counsel for the petitioners relied on a decision of the Honourable Supreme Court reported in : (Ramalingam Chettiar Vs P.K.Pattabiraman, 2001 4 SCC 96).