RAMANUJA EXIMLINKS Vs. NORASIA LINES

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE complaint has been filed against the carrier for recovery of certain sum of rupees on the ground of deficiency in service. The opposite party which is impleaded in the complaint is M/s. Norasia Lines. The complainant has filed this application to implead opposite party Nos. 2 to 5. According to the complainant, they understand that the agency of the opposite party who represent M/s. Norasia Lines had been terminated and that the proposed opposite parties are now the persons who have stepped into the shoes of the said M/s. Norasia Lines.

(2.) THE only objection raised by the opposite parties is that the complaint as against the opposite parties is barred by limitation if they are now to be brought on record as parties. It is true that the question of limitation can be more effectively considered and decided only in the course of inquiry of the main petition. At this stage, it may be premature to decide the same. Moreover, the fundamental position of law is that the question of limitation can be reckoned only against the party only when he is brought on record. Therefore, if really the complaint is barred by limitation or not can be then decided. The bringing in of the opposite parties on record now at this stage would cause no prejudice to them. According to the complainant in spite of their best steps they were not furnished with the information and they have to be construed too difficult in obtaining this information and therefore, they have come forward with this application. Therefore, there is no limitation for filing such an application to implead the parties. Whether the main petition is barred by limitation or not can be decided only in the course of inquiry of the main petition. Therefore, impleading of the proposed opposite parties cannot in any manner cause any prejudice and it is always open to agitate the main petition. The fact that they are brought on record does not amount to acceptance of the complainants case on merits.