ANANT BHIKU SHIRODKAR AND ANOTHE Vs. ROSALINA FERNANDES

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE plaintiffs filed this revision application against the order passed by the Civil Judge, S. D. , Quepem dated 12-7-1994 (though in the order it has been mistakenly typed as 1984), whereby an application for impleading some parties in the suit has been rejected by the Court below on the ground of limitation.

(2.) I have heard counsel for the petitioners and the respondent. The question of limitation as raised in this order is a matter that can be raised by the person sought to be impleaded but not the person at whose instance the impleadment is being made. In fact, the impleadment has been made in view of a plea taken in the written statement that the persons sought to be impleaded are necessary parties. Therefore, the person who took up such plea cannot raise any objection in impleading those persons.

(3.) THE learned Counsel for the respondent has very vehemently argued that the suit against the persons who were sought to be impleaded is barred and the nature of the suit will itself be changed and therefore the trial Court was fully justified in rejecting the application for impleadment.