AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Kumaraswami Sastri, J.—The District Munsif was wrong in holding that the application, under Order I, Rule 10 of the Code of Civil
Procedure, is not maintainable because a previous application under Order XXII, Rule 4, was rejected. It is unnecessary to decide in this petition
whether the principle enunciated in Veerappa Chetty v. Tindal Ponnen 31 M.k 86 applies where there are more than one defendants. There is
nothing to prevent the petitioner to seek to add as parties persons who claim a derivative title from a defend ant already on record, where such
persons are in possession and claim hostility to the plaintiff, I do not see any grounds for refusing to add them as parties. Order I, Rule 10, applies
to such cases and the mere fact that they are the legal representatives of a person who died before the institution of the suit and who was wrongly
imp leaded as defendant does not affect the question, where they are sought to be imp leaded in their individual capacity find not as legal
representatives. I allow the petition and setting aside the order of the District Munsif direct that the parties named in the petition be added as
defendants. They will, of course, be entitled to raise any pleas as to limitation.
The respondents will pay the petitioner''s costs.