AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Phillips, J.—One of the plaintiffs in this suit which was instituted u/s 92, Civil Procedure Code, was found to have no interest such as that
required by this section. Thereupon, two other men who had the requisite interest applied to the Collector and obtained sanction to institute this
very suits, They were then added as third and fourth plaintiffs. Objection was however, taken by the defendants, to the effect that the suit was bad
as laid and must be dismissed and that the requirements of Section 92 were not satisfied by adding the third and fourth plaintiffs in the same suit.
The learned Subordinate Judge heard the objection, discussed it and came to the conclusion that the suit was not properly instituted and dismissed
it. There is a ruling of this Court in Ramayyangar v. Krishnayyangar ILR (1887) Mad. 185, which would cover the present case, but it was argued
that in the old Code no such clause as that in sub-paragraph (2) of Section 92 occurred in Section 539 and that the latter paragraph makes a
difference. We find, however that Ramayyangar v. Krishnayyangar ILR (1887) Mad. 185, has been followed in some very recent cases of this
Court decided under the new Code. One of them is a decision of Oldfield and Bakewell, JJ., in Appeals Nos, 310 and 373 of 1918 and the other
is the judgment of Spencer and Krishnan, JJ., in Ambalavana Pandara Sannadhigal v. The Advocate-General of Madras ILR (1920) Mad. 707.
On the other hand, there is a ruling of the Bombay High Court in Darves Haji Mahamad v. Jainudin ILR (1906) Bom. 603, contrary to the view
taken in these cases. And the Allahabad High Court seems to have taken the same view of the law as the Bombay High Court. But the matter
being purely one of procedure we think we ought to follow the rulings of this Court. The judgment of the Subordinate Judge is set aside and the
case will be remanded to him for disposal on the merits, the memorandum of objections being allowed.