N SUBBARAYA IYER Vs. VAITHINATHA IYER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) We are bound by the decisions of this Court to hold that the suit is not maintainable unless Meenakshi Ammal is the plaintiff and I cannot accede to the contentions of the Advocate-General that as the suit has been framed she is a plaintiff by implication, or that the statement in the plaint to the effect that the money belongs to the plaintiffs amounts to an assignment to the plaintiffs. I think, therefore, that the suit must be dismissed unless she can now be made a plaintiff. I have no doubt that this can be done under Order I, Rule 10(1) Vide Krishna Bai V/s. The Collector and Government Agent, Tanjore 30 M. 419 : 9 M.L.T. 447 and the only question is whether if it is done now the suit will not be barred by limitation.

(2.) We cannot bring her on the record now as from the date on which the suit was actually instituted; it is not very clear to me what was the effect of the order in Seshamma V/s. Chennappa 20 M. 467, in the matter of dates, but clearly the learned Judges did not intend to make their amendment date back to the date on which the suit was originally instituted. Had they felt themselves able to do that, no question of limitation could have arisen.

(3.) The utmost we could do on the authority of that case would be, it seems to me, to date the amendment as of the date on which the Court of first instance ought to have made it and that could not be earlier than the date of application and the suit, if instituted on that date, would have been already barred by limitation.