KESO AND ORS. Vs. GOPAL SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE question of limitation alone is involved in this appeal. The suit giving rise to this appeal was filed for recovery of money on the basis of promotes. That suit was stayed because the Plaintiff money -lender had not obtained the necessary licence under the Pepsu Money -lenders Act. During the period that the suit was stayed, the sole Defendant the debtor, died. The date of his death is January, 1964. The creditor obtained the requisite licence on the 23rd of September, 1964 and made an application for restoration of the suit along with an application for imp leading the legal representatives of the deceased debtor. The application for imp leading the legal representatives was held to be barred by time, with the result that the suit was dismissed. An appeal against this decision has been allowed by the lower appellate court and the application for imp leading the legal representatives has been held to be within time and consequently the suit was decreed. This decision is now being challenged in second appeal by the legal representatives of the Defendant debtor. As already observed, it is only the point of limitation that has been agitated.

(2.) MR . Tirath Singh's contention is that the suit had abated when Dalip Singh, the sole Defendant, died and, therefore, the application made on the 20th of October, 1964, for imp leading his legal representatives along with the application for restoration of the suit was beyond time. According to the learned Counsel the least that the Respondent should have done was to file the applications on the date when he got the license, i.e., on the 23rd of September, 1964. This contention loses sight of the fact that during the stay of the suit there were no proceedings pending. Order 22 of the Code of Civil Procedure contemplates an application in a pending proceeding. When no proceedings are pending, there is no point in making an application. I am fortified in my view by the decision of the Hyderabad High Court in Venkat NarSimhan Reddy v. Konda Reddy, A.I.R. 1951 Hyd. 55. At page 56 of the report the learned Judges observed as follows:

(3.) NO other contention has been advanced.