SRI RAM NATH Vs. SRI KEDAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS civil revision by the Plaintiff arise out of a suit for the re covery of a sum of money. The suit was brought by a firm Harsukhrai Sagarmal through Sagarmal against Achhaibar and others to recover Rs. 840 on account of the price of cloth purchased by defen dants from the Plaintiff and on account of interest on the price of the cloth. The suit was filed on 30-4-1957. Later the Plaintiff applied for amendment of the description of the plaintiff. The amend ment was allowed on 13-8-1962. The words "Firm Harsukhrai Sagarmal Makua Baragaon Zariya" preceding the word "Sagarmal" were deleted from the des cription of the plaintiff. Various pleas were raised in defence. It was pleaded that the claim was barred by time. Mun-sif, Mohamdabad, who tried the suit, overruled the plea of Limitation raised in defence and held that the claim was within time. The plaintiff's claim was partly decreed. The trial Court passed a decree for a sum of Rs. G47.00/3 with in terest.

(2.) THE defendants appealed; and the Plaintiff filed a cross-objection. The Civil Judge Azamgarh dismissed the cross-objection and allowed the appeal. It was held that the plaintiff's claim was barred by time. Sagarmal appears to be dead. His son Ram Nath has filed this civil revision against the appellate decision of the Civil Judge, Azamgarh.

(3.) IN India Red Lead Factories Co. v. Purshottam Das. AIR 1960 Cal 327 it was held that where the Plaintiff wrongly in serts the joint family trading name as defendant and then proposes to bring on record the persons forming the trading name instetad of that name, the case is not one of bringing new parties on record.