A ANANDHKUMAR Vs. K C ANNAMALAI GOUNDER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE first defendant in O. S. No. 255 of 2004 on the file of District Judge, Vellore is the revision petitioner herein. The Plaintiff/first respondent herein has filed the said suit for recovery of a sum of Rs. 6,17,400/- together with future interest. Pending suit, the first respondent herein has taken out an application in I. A. No. 99 of 2005 to implead the third respondent herein, which was allowed on 12. 10. 2006. Challenging the said order in I. A. No. 99 of 2005, the present revision petition has been filed.

(2.) MR. T. R. Rajaraman, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the Court below erred in allowing the implead petition and the reasons assigned for the same are against the settled provisions of law; that the court below failed to note that the first respondent by filing implead petition has taken away the rights vested with the partnership firm by passage of time, which is impermissible in law; that the court below failed to advert to the provisions of limitation where the period of limitation in the suit for recovery of money on promissory note is only three years from the date of execution of the promissory note, hence, the claim as against the third respondent herein is barred since it was not arrayed as a defendant within the said period; that in any event, the court below ought not to have allowed the implead petition and prayed for allowing of this revision petition. In support of his contention, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner relied on the below mentioned decisions:-i) (Radhika Devi vs. Bajrangi Singh and others) (1996) 7 Supreme Court Cases 486) wherein in Para Nos. 5 and 6, the Honourable Supreme Court held thus:-5. We find no force in the contention of the appellant. No doubt, the amendment of the plaint is normally granted and only in exceptional cases where the accrued rights are taken away by amendment of the pleading, the Court would refuse the amendment. This Court in Laxmidas Dahyabhai Kabarwala vs. Nanabhai Chunilal Kabarwala (SCR at p. 582) held thus:-

(3.) MR. K. R. A. Muthukrishnan, learned counsel appearing for the first respondent submitted that the petitioner and the second respondent herein are defendants in the suit; that they have been carrying on business as Partners of the third respondent herein and executed promissory note; that in the said suit, they have taken a plea that the suit promissory note was executed for the partnership firm and the partnership firm ought to have been impleaded as a party, but not impleaded; that in view of the above stand taken by the petitioner and the second respondent herein, to avoid complications, it has become necessary to implead the third respondent firm; that the bar of limitation cannot be made applicable in so far as the said dispute is concerned; that the court below rightly allowed the application to implead the third respondent herein and prayed for dismissal of the revision petition. In support of his contention, the learned counsel for the first respondent relied on the decision of the Honourable Supreme Court reported in (Dena Bank vs. Bhikhabhai Prabhudas Parkesh and Co. and others) 2000 (IV) CTC 170 wherein in Para No. 18, it was held thus:-