HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY C.R.P.Nos.2517 and 2527 of 2014 Date : 12-12-2014 Between:
Manasi Mullapudi ..
Petitioner And K. Pratap Redy and others .. Respondents Counsel for petitioner : Mr. R. Dheeraj Singh Counsel for respondent No.1: Mr. Manik Rao The Court made the following :
COMMON ORDER:
Both these Civil Revision Petitions are heard together as they arise out of common suit between the same parties.
Respondent No.1 has filed O.S.No.947 of 2007 on the file of the learned I Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B. Nagar for specific performance of an agreement of sale against the petitioner. The petitioner has filed written statement on 8-6-2007 wherein she has pleaded that she has executed a gift deed in respect of the suit schedule property in favour of her husband on 12-12- 2001. Respondent No.1 has filed I.A.No.17 of 2013 under Order I Rule 10(2) r/w. Section 151 CPC for impleading respondent No.3 as defendant No.3, who is the husband of the petitioner, in the suit. He has also filed I.A.No.18 of 2013 under Order VI Rule 17 CPC seeking amendment of pleadings in the plaint by inserting para-8(a). The petitioner and respondent No.3 have filed counter affidavits wherein they have resisted the said applications. However, the lower Court, by common order passed on 28-3-2014 has allowed both the applications. Aggrieved by the said orders, the petitioner has filed the present Revision Petitions.
Mr. R. Dheeraj Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner has strongly contended that though his client has filed written statement as far back as 8-6-2007 raising an averment that she has executed a registered gift deed in favour of respondent No.3 on 12-12-2001, respondent No.1, for the reasons best known to him, failed to take steps to file appropriate applications at an earlier point of time and that having waited till the commencement of trial, he has come out with the present applications. He has also relied upon Order I Rule 10(5) and Section 21 of the Limitation Act, 1963 (for short “the 1963 Act”) in support of his submission that the where a party is impleaded after the institution of a suit, the suit shall, as regards that party, deemed to have been instituted when he was made a party. Based on these provisions, the learned counsel has submitted that if a separate suit is filed questioning the gift deed the same would be barred by limitation and hence the lower Court has committed a serious error in allowing the applications filed by respondent No.1.
Mr. Manik Rao, the learned counsel for the respondent No.1 has sought to support the orders of the lower Court.
I have carefully considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for respondent No.1.
At the outset, it needs to be pointed out that respondent No.3 who has filed counter affidavit opposing the applications filed by respondent No.1 has not joined the petitioner in filing the Revision Petitions. Respondent No.3 has not even contested the Revision Petitions though he has entered appearance through a counsel.
It is no doubt true that sub-rule (5) of Rule 10 of Order I CPC envisages that subject to the provisions of Section 22 of the Limitation Act, 1877 (for short “the 1877 Act”), the proceedings against any person added as a defendant shall be deemed to have begun only upon service of summons. Section 21 of 1963 Act is in pari materia with Section 22 of the 1877 Act. Section 21 of Act 1963 envisages that 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. Thus, if a substantive suit is filed against respondent No.3, the same may be barred by limitation applying Article 113 of the 1963 Act. However, the proviso to Section 21 thereof gives discretion to the Court to direct that the suit as regards such plaintiff or defendant shall be deemed to have been instituted on any earlier date.
Here is a case where respondent No.1 has alleged serious fraud against the petitioner in executing the gift deed in favour of respondent No.3, who is none other than her husband. Indeed, a separate suit was filed by the petitioner against her own mother i.e., respondent No.2 for declaration that she was not the legally wedded wife of her father- respondent No.2. Respondent No.2 has also filed a suit against the petitioner and her husband. The suit filed by the petitioner and her husband was dismissed and the suit filed by respondent No.2 was decreed on 13-12-2012. The learned counsel for respondent No.1 has contended that his client was awaiting the result of the suits before filing the present applications. In the above facts and circumstances, I am of the opinion that it is a fit case where the proviso to Section 21 of the Act 1963 deserves to be invoked in favour of respondent No.1. Accordingly, I do not find any reason to interfere with the orders of the lower court.
The Civil Revision Petitions are accordingly dismissed.
As a sequel to the dismissal of the Civil Revision Petitions, interim order dated 22-8-2014 in C.R.P.No.2517 of 2014 is vacated and CRPMP Nos.3509 and 3522 of 2014 are disposed of as infructuous.
Justice C.V. Nagarjuna Reddy Date : 12-12-2014 AM