TMI Blog1931 (2) TMI 8X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the suit. ( 2. ) The suit was instituted by one Musafar Rowther, oh behalf of himself and other members of the community of Melagar Uraimwraigars of Ghoripalayam, and the necessary permission of the Court under Order 1, Rule 8, Civil Procedure Code, was also obtained. The suit is therefore a representative suit. The proper cause title for such a suit is: Musafar Rowther, on behalf of himself a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s on 20 November, 1928. The present application was filed by the respondents on 3 January, 1929, under Order 1, Rules 8 and 10 and Section 151 of the Code. This was granted by the Lower Court, and the propriety of that order is now questioned in this revision petition. ( 4. ) it is rightly conceded, that in view of the suit being a representative suit, there could be no abatement under Order 22 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e a party to the suit. But in the decision of a Division Bench reported in Krishnaswami Aiyar V/s. Seethalahshwi Ammal (1918) 9 L.W. 166 Sadasiva Aiyar, J., is of opinion that the residuary Art. 181 of the Limitation Act fixing a period of 3 years would apply to such an application. It is clear that even in a representative suit under Order 1, Rule 8, Civil Procedure Code, any person seeking to be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... plaintiff was adjudged an insolvent). In the present case, after the death of Musafar Rowther, any other member of the community could apply to be added as plaintiff within three years under Art. 181. ( 5. ) Before the expiration of that period, it seems to me, the Court had no jurisdiction to dismiss the suit for default. Though the suit is a representative suit for the purpose of making the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
