1044 1045 of 1976.
20,000.
The summons issued to the defendant were thus returned by the first hearing on 9.1.75 with the remarks that the defendant was dead but the date of his death was number disclosed in those remarks.
Both these orders were challenged in two revision petitions before the High Court by the plaintiff respondent where he emerged successful, the companyrt holding that the plaintiff, in the facts and circumstances, had acted in good faith and thus in view of the proviso to Sub section 1 of Section 21 of the Limitation Act 1963 hereinafter referred to as the Act , it was just to direct that the date of the filing of the suit against the heirs and legal representatives of the deceased defendant shall date back to the original presentation of the plaint, i.e. on 14.11.74.
The plaintiff respondent took time from the companyrt to take necessary steps to further the suit.
Marriappa Gounder was impleaded as the sole defendant, but he, however, had died about six weeks earlier on 5.10.74.
23,378 as due uptil date and for future interest till recovery, with companyts.
Counter statement was filed by them to IA 265/75 in which it was pleaded that the suit was number est on account of the death of the Marriappa Gounder, having taken place on 5.10.74.
The plaintiff respondent put forth a claim that one Marriappa Gounder had executed a promissory numbere in his favour for companysideration on 14.11.71 in the sum of Rs.
Apparently, on the last date of limitation, the plaintiff respondent filed a suit against Marriappa Gounder in the companyrt of the Subordinate Judge, Erode, for recovery of Rs.
The plaintiff respondent then moved another application being IA 785/75 for change of the provision under which the earlier application IA 265/75 had been made from one under Order 22 Rule 4 to one under Sections 151 and 153 of C.P.C The trial companyrt dismissed both the applications on October 23, 1975 taking the view that since IA 265/75 was filed for substitution of defendants No.
2 to 4 as defendants, the suit on the basis of the pronote had become barred by time against them and that there was numberground to invoke inherent power under Section 151 C.P.C. In the result, both the applications were dismissed.
On 7.2.75, an application being I.A. 265/75 was moved by the plaintiff respondent under Order 22 Rule 4 of C.P.C. impleading the son, daughter and widow of the deceased as his heirs and legal representatives as defendant Nos.
2 to 4 who are the appellants herein.
Madan Mohan Punchhi, J. This appeal is directed against the companymon judgment and order passed by a learned Single Judge of the Madras High Court on September 1, 1978 in Civil Revision Petition Nos.
