Through the Review Petition, the petitioner/appellant has sought for the re-consideration of R.F.A. No.960 of 2012 and to set aside the judgment of dismissal passed by this Court on 27.01.2014, thereby enabling a re-hearing of the Regular First Appeal on merits. 2. It has to be noted that, this Court vide judgment dated 27.01.2014, had dismissed the R.F.A. after considering it on merits. The plaintiff in O.S. No.696 of 1991 of the Principal Subordinate Judge's Court, Kottayam is the appellant. His case in short is that he had obtained financial nursing from the 2nd defendant Bank and established a Small Scale Industrial Unit named “Quick Lime Project” at Thuruthy, Vazhappally Village. The 2nd defendant Bank had obtained an insurance policy from the 1st defendant Insurance Company in order to secure the loan transaction and for adequately securing the Small Scale Industrial Unit started by the plaintiff against any loss. Even though, the Insurance Company ought to have issued 'A' Policy, by mistake what was issued was 'C' policy. 'C' policy could cover loss on account of fire only. In this particular case, according to the plaintiff, he had suffered loss on account of heavy rain and storm on 10.04.1988. When he forwarded a claim for insurance, the Insurance Company denied any compensation, for want of coverage, through Ext.A6 letter dated 26.12.1989. Thereupon, the suit was instituted initially against the 1st respondent herein alone as the sole defendant. Subsequently, it seems that State Bank of Travancore, Thuruthy Branch was impleaded as the additional 2nd defendant. Even though, no relief has been sought against the Bank, it was alleged that the Bank was negligent in obtaining 'C' policy instead of 'A' policy. As the loan transaction was transferred to the Muhamma Branch of the State Bank of Travancore, subsequently the said Branch was impleaded as additional 3rd defendant. The matter was hotly contested and ultimately the suit was dismissed by the Court below, against which the present appeal was preferred. Vide judgment dated 27.01.2014, this Court found that the suit is barred by limitation.
3. This Court found that Article 44(b) of the Limitation Act is applicable in respect of a policy of insurance as against the insurer only. The said Article can have no application when claims are forwarded against others. It is true that, in this particular case, negligence has been alleged against defendants 2 and 3 also and they were also impleaded. This Court found that when additional defendants 2 and 3 were impleaded, the concerned Article of the Limitation Act is Article 113 and therefore, the suit is barred by limitation.
4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner Sri. K. Jagadeesachandran Nair, learned counsel for the 1st respondent Sri. K.K.M Sherif and learned counsel for respondents 2 and 3 Sri. Satheesh Ninan.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner has pointed out that the cause of action has arisen only on 26.12.1989, that is the date of Ext.A6 letter denying the liability by the 1st respondent and therefore, the suit is not barred by limitation. The cause of action resorted to by the plaintiff in the suit is as one, which arose on 10.04.1988. From the denial of disbursement of compensation through Ext.A6, the period of limitation is three years from that date as far as the 1st defendant Insurer is concerned, under Article 44(b). At the same time, as per Article 113, the period of limitation is three years from the time when the right to sue accrues. Here, in in this particular case, the said right to sue had accrued necessarily on 10.04.1988, which is the cause of action noted in the plaint, the date on which the plaintiff suffered damages due to heavy rain and storm. The said date is the accrual of the cause of action as per Article 113 of the Limitation Act. The impleadment of additional defendants 2 and 3 in the suit is not a mere amendment; whereas, it has the effect under Section 21 of the Limitation Act, 1963.
6. As per Section 21(1), where after the institution of a suit, a new plaintiff or, defendant is substituted or added, the suit shall, as regards him, be deemed to have been instituted when he was so made a party. It seems that, both the 2nd defendant and additional 3rd defendant were impleaded in the suit much later than three years from the date of accrual of the cause of action. As rightly observed by this Court, the suit is barred by limitation and therefore, any further discussion over the claim of the plaintiff is not warranted.
7. On going through the entire judgment passed by this Court, I am of the view that the said judgment is not liable to be set aside. Any further rehearing is not warranted in this case. This Review Petition is devoid merits, and is only to be dismissed, and I do so.
In the result, the said judgment is not liable to be set aside.
B. KEMAL PASHA, JUDGE sp