AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
S.K. Seth, J.—He is heard on the question of admission. In this petition grievance of the petitioner is that the Court below did not pass any order on the prayer that the suit against defendant No. 7 and 8 was deemed to have been instituted on 15.07.2010.
Petitioner filed the suit for specific performance of contract. Initially respondent No. 1 to 6 were impleaded as defendant No. 1 to 6. Later, on an application filed by the petitioner, respondent No. 7 and 8 were also made party to the suit as defendants.
It is submitted by the counsel that Court ought to have allowed the aforesaid prayer. In support of this contention, he placed reliance on Section 21 of the Limitation Act, 1963 and also on the decision of the Supreme Court in Karuppaswamy and Others Vs. C. Ramamurthy, . After hearing counsel and going through the material placed on record, we find no illegality with the order impugned. In the aforesaid judgment, it is held that the proviso to Section 21 of the Limitation Act is a beneficent provision which could be invoked for correction of errors, when the Court is satisfied, on proof, of a bonafide mistake. Obviously to the case in hand, ratio of the said decision is not applicable. Thus, there is no merit and substance in this petition. Accordingly it is hereby dismissed in limine.