MUNICIPAL COUNCIL OF KUMBAKONAM Vs. VEERAPERUMAL PADAYACHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this case the plaintiff brought a suit originally against the Municipality of Kumbakonam and another, a contractor, claiming to be interested in a contract made by his brother with the defendant Municipality, which contract was still in force, asking for an injunction against the defendant to restrain them from interfering with the work being done under the contract, and for a small amount of damages for extra expense to which the contractor had been put owing to past interference, the person with whom the contract was made not being joined as plaintiff but being made a defendant on the ground that he was at the time in jail and unable to bring the suit himself. Subsequently, leave was granted by the District

(2.) Munsif to amend the plaint and to make the contractor-defend-ant a plaintiff. This was done and a claim, alternative to that for an injunction, in the form of a claim for damages for Rs. 312-8-0 was added in the view that possibly the conditions had changed in such a manner that an injunction would not or could not be granted. The District Munsif decreed the amount against the Municipality and dismissed the suit against the other parties, holding that they were in no way responsible for the damage, The Municipality appealed on the ground that notice required by Section 261 had not been given and that the suit was barred by limitation and on the merits. The Subordinate Judge dismissed the appeal.

(3.) The points taken in this appeal are that no proper notice under Section 261 had been given, that the District Munsif erred in law in permitting the plaint to be amended, that the first plaintiff had no locus standi to file the suit and that the suit is barred by limitation.