SHAKURKHAN GHAISAKHAN Vs. YOGIDULICHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) COUNSEL heard on I. A. No. 304 of 1989 filed on 12-1-1989, whereby the appellant has applied to add the State as a party in view of the provisions of Order 1, Rule 3-B of the Code of Civil Procedure.

(2.) SHRI A. K. Jain, learned counsel for the respondents opposed the application and contended that the application is barred by time, because the provisions of Order 1 rule 3-B, Civil Procedure Code has been added in the Code of civil Procedure by S. 5 Civil Procedure Code M. P. Amendment Act, 1984 (Act No. 29 of 1984) which came into force from 11-7-1984 and right to apply first accrued on that date. Learned counsel placed reliance on a decision of the Apex Court reported in AIR 1977 SC 282 (The Kerala Electricity Board, Trivandrum vs. T. P. Kunhaliumma) and a single Bench decision of this court in C. R. No. 501 of 83 (G)decided on 29-8-86, Morena District Co-op Sugar Factory vs. New India assurance Co. , 1987 (Vol. I) M. P. Weekly Notes, Note 105. The learned counsel contended that after the enforcement of the Act and amendment the appellant ought to have filed the application under O. 1, Rule 3-B Civil Procedure Code within a period of three years from the date of the amendment as the residuary Act. 137 of the Limitation Act lays down a period of 3 years for making any such application. As the condition precedent has not been complied with and the State has not been made party within time, the appeal deserves to be dismissed.

(3.) AFTER hearing the counsel I am of the opinion that the objection of the learned counsel for the respondents has no merit. By Section 5 of the M. P. Amendment Act, 1984 (Act No. 29 of 1984), O. 1, Rule 3-B Civil Procedure Code has been added in the Principal Act i. e. Code of Civil Procedure after Rule 3-A. Rule 3-B reads as under: