NISTARINI DASSYA Vs. SARAT CHANDRA MOJUMDAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal arises out of a suit upon a registored mortgage bond. The Munsif decreed the suit. In the Court of first appeal the suit has been dismissed on the ground of limitation. The plaintiffs appeal now to this Court.

(2.) The bond was executed in October 1895, the due date being April 1900. It was executed in favour of one Gopal Chandra De. The suit was brought on the 29th April 1911, shortly before the expiry of 12 years after the due date by the widow of Gopal Chandra De, who had been appointed administratrix to his estate. On the 30th November 1911, the widow presented a petition supported by an affidavit stating that her Pleader had discovered that her powers as administratrix had come to an end before the suit was instituted. It appeared that under the Letters of Administration her appointment as administratrix was to terminate when the eldest son of Gopal Chandra De attained majority and this had occurred some years prior to the institution of the suit. She prayed that the three sons of Gopal Chandra De who were his heirs should be added as plaintiffs. The Munsif made the order prayed for. It will be observed that the three sons wore added as plaintiffs some months after the period of limitation hail expired.

(3.) The order of the Munsif was made under Clause (1), Rule 10, Order I, of the first Schedule to the Code of Civil Procedure. The Munsif held in the terms of the claus that the suit had been instituted through a bona fide mistake in the name of the wrong person as plaintiff and accordingly ordered that the right persons, namely, the three sons, be added as plaintiffs. He held the suit was not barred by limitation and decreed it on the merits.