Thursday, June 6, 2024

𝗝𝘂𝗱𝗶𝗰𝗶𝗮𝗹𝗗𝗿𝗲𝗮𝗺™

𝙰𝙵𝙵𝙾𝚁𝙳𝙰𝙱𝙻𝙴 & 𝙰𝙲𝙲𝙴𝚂𝚂𝙸𝙱𝙻𝙴

LIMITATIONMODEL ANSWER

ADDITION OF A PARTY

What is the effect of addition of a plaintiff or defendant in a pending suit upon the limitation for filing such suit?

Section 21 of the Indian Limitation Act, 1963, deals with the provisions of addition of plaintiff or defendant in a pending suit. According to this section, if any party to the suit files an application for the addition or substitution of another plaintiff or defendant after the institution of the suit and if the latter person has been added or substituted as a party by the court, then it will be considered that the suit with regard to that latter party has been instituted on that date when he was so made a party to the suit by the court.

In the leading case of Karuppaswamy and others vs. C. Ramamurthy, the Hon’ble court held that section 21(1) of the Indian Limitation Act, 1963, lays down that if after the institution of the suit, any person has added or substituted as a party, then with regard to that person, it will be considered that the suit has been instituted on that date when he was so made a party.

According to this section, if any person has been impleaded as a plaintiff after the expiry of the period of limitation and if that plaintiff is a necessary party to the suit and without his presence, the court cannot determine the rights of the parties conclusively, then in such a case, the court will dismiss such suit for the want of period of limitation.

But, if such plaintiff is a proper party to the suit, then in such a case, the suit will not be dismissed by the court. On the other hand, if defendant is a necessary party to the suit and he has been impleaded as a party in the suit after the expiry of the period of limitation, then in such a case, he can claim the benefit of section 3 of the Indian Limitation Act, 1963 and the court will dismiss the suit.

However, according to the proviso of section 21(1) of the Indian Limitation Act, 1963, if a person fails to include another person as plaintiff or defendant in a suit bonafidely and without any malafide intention and if such person proves that he has made the mistake in good faith, then in such a situation, if any person has been impleaded as a party, it will be considered that the suit with regard to that person has been instituted on an earlier date when it was originally instituted by the plaintiff.

In the leading case of Kissan Co-operative Sugar Factory Ltd. vs. M/s Rajendra Paper Mills and others, the Hon’ble court held that the burden of proof will be upon that person who has filed an application for the impleadment of another person that he failed to include that party in a suit without any malafide intention and he has made a mistake in good faith. If the person satisfies the court, then in such a case, the court may direct that the suit with regard to the latter shall be deemed to have been instituted on an earlier date.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

error: Content is protected !!