AHAMADULLAH Vs. RAMASWAMY UDAYAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE revision petitioners are the plaintiffs in O.S. No. 481/84 on the file of the District Munsif, Perambalur. THE respondents are the defendants in the said suit. Two applications viz. , I.A. No. 730/92 and I.A. No. 731/92 came to be filed in that suit, both under Order 1, Rule 8, C.P.C. First application was for permission to permit the plaintiffs to sue in a representative capacity and the second application was to sue the defendants in a representative capacity. Both the applications were dismissed and hence the present two revisions before this Court.

(2.) I hear Miss. Asha, learned counsel appearing for the revisions petitions in each of these two revisions and Mr. A.K. Kumarasamy, learned counsel appearing for the respondents in each of these two revisions. According to the learned counsel for the revision petitioners, the present applications in the suit, though came to be filed belatedly, yet it arose only on account of the objection taken by the defendants in the written statement. By allowing these two applications, only fresh parties are added to the suit but the capacity of the plaintiffs as well as the defendants in the suit in which they were brought before Court alone is sought to be attacked. Under these circumstances, the submission of the learned counsel for the revision petitioners is that the trial Judge had committed an error in law as well as on facts in dismissing the applications. The learned counsel also submitted that there are enough pleadings in the pliant itself which show that the suit as filed is only in a representative capacity though not the permission under Order 1, Rule 8 was not obtained. Opposing these submission, Mr. A.K. Kumarasamy, learned counsel appearing for the respondents would state that if these applications were allowed it would have the effect of bringing new parties before the Court as plaintiffs as well as the defendants. If as on the date on which the respective applications came to be filed before the Court, the relief sought for in the plaint as against the parties to be brought on record is barred by limitation, then the present applications could not be allowed in law. In this context, Mr. A.K. Kumarasamy, learned counsel for the respondents brought to my notice a judgment of a learned single Judge of this Court in Chinnaswami v. Kandasami (AIR 1970 Madras 81). As against this the learned counsel for the revision petitioners brought to my notice a judgment of this Court rendered by two learned Judges in Nandaramdas v. Zulika Bibi (AIR 1943 Madras 531).